Dr. Drew - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/dr.-drew.htm Latest news and articles about Dr. Drew en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008.§/Newave SARL. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:06:42 GMT Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:06:42 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {INTERNET > W} - Doofus on Line One http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/on-the-web/weblogs/personal/w/doofus-on-line-one-20081174820.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/on-the-web/weblogs/personal/w/doofus-on-line-one-20081174820.htm Thu, 20 Nov 2008 04:48:20 GMT You'd think something might have changed while I was away the past few months. With all that free time spent not writing, I should have been able to pick up a skill or two. You'd think I'd emerge from my hiatus a new and better man -- wiser, craftier, savvier. Yeah. You'd think. Meanwhile, back on our own planet... Yesterday, after I'd made up my mind to resurrect this little den of drivel, I drove over to a local pool hall for league night. Just as I was parking, my old roommate from college called. He was on a business trip, watching my favorite college hoops team on TV, and decided to give me a call to rub it in that they were down seven points at halftime at home to a team whose mascot is a goddamned arachnid reminisce. Aw. How sweet. Sort of. I sat in the car and chatted with him for awhile, until it was league time. As we wrapped up the call, I instinctively patted my pockets to make sure all the usual pants suspects were present and accounted for: Back right pocket: wallet, check! Front right pocket: keys... not there. Oh, but they're in the ignition. Of course. Check. Front and center: everybody's home, zipper all the way up, checkamundo. Front left pocket: cell phone.... missing. Shit. Where the hell did I leave the cell phone? As my friend and I said our goodbyes (yes, that's right, over the phone, I know you can see it coming and there's nothing I can do now to hide it), I mentally walked through when I'd seen the phone last. 'I had it when I left the house this morning... played with it during the staff meeting, yep... three hour bathroom break to play tetris, and then... oh, right -- I had to plug it in to recharge the battery. Oh dear lord, my phone's still at the office!' Thank the gods I have the one feeble brain cell still churning, or I'd have said all that out loud. Which means the end of our conversation would have gone something like this: Me: Sorry buddy, I've got to run. I just realized I left my phone at work. Him: Okay, sure-- wait. Your phone? Me: Yeah, and it's new, too. I'd hate to lose it. Him: Your cell phone, we're talking about? Me: Right. I've really got to go and look for it, pronto. Him: Dude. How the hell did you ever make it out of freshman year? "You ever seen a neuron commit seppuku? It's not pretty." As it was, it took me another full minute or so to realize that the phone wasn't in my pocket because, obviously, it was in my stupid hand. Another few seconds and I would have had the unenviable dilemma of trying to put the car back in gear to go find my cell phone while figuring out where to put my cell phone so I could drive. And I don't think that last brain cell would have stood for that. You ever seen a neuron commit seppuku? It's not pretty. In my defense, all I can say is that last night is one of the first times in the month I've had my new phone that I've actually used it as a phone. It's one of those fancy new Googly doohickeys, and though I use it for plenty of other nonsense on a daily basis, it's rare that I make the actual wireless talky-talky on it. So I was as surprised as anyone to discover that the phone missing from my pocket was, in fact, plastered to my cheek. What a novel concept. Come to think of it, I'm a little surprised that I have the phone in the first place. I'm not exactly what you call an 'early adopter' of new technology. I had the mobile phone it replaced for a number of years -- it was a rotary-dial model and the size of a small doghouse, if that tells you anything. The phone before that, I picked up cheap sometime in the Cenezoic era; if the string hadn't broken completely off the tin can handset, I probably would have never traded it in. But the draw of the Googly phone was too much; I bought it the very day it went on sale. Changed carriers to get it, too. (Technically -- this is merely technically, now, understand -- but technically, I 'camped out' to get it. Which means I accidentally showed up twenty minutes before the store opened and had to wait in line behind some Asian kid and his mom, a gaggle of RenFaire rejects and a guy whose nickname at some point in his life, I'm certain, was 'Jughead'. And probably still is. Rubbing shoulders with royalty, I was. And I wonder why I don't 'camp out' for things more often.) Anyway, the thing that really drew me to this phone is how open it is. Without getting into all of the mumbo jumboterica, the key is that people who want to write nifty little programs for it can have access to just about anything they want. The address book. The GPS. Wireless connections. Credit card numbers. Your DNA sequence. Pretty much everything. And what a load off an already-taxed mind, let me tell you. Oh sure, they said at the store, this little baby doesn't do anything now. Nothing at all, really, but sit there and look not-nearly-pretty-enough-for-some-picky-people. But some day... some day Real Soon Now™, the world will be your cell phone's oyster. You want to surf the web? You got it. Pinpoint on a map where someone's calling from? They'll figure out a way. Play a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War? Greetings, Dr. Falken. Why, in the not-so-distant future, they said, you'll be able to program this system to ring an alarm to wake you in the morning, bring you Eggos and juice in bed, and toss a pair of fresh underpants in the dryer to warm to your liking. (Of course, you'll need a hardware upgrade for that last bit of functionality. And additional carrier charges may apply, if your laundry room happens to be in a roaming area. Also, I'd probably get the phone with a software glitch, and wind up with my Fruit of the Looms covered in syrup and wrinkly waffles stuffed down my pants. And I've long said I'm never letting that happen. Again. Not after the Great Denny's Fiasco of '06.) So I suppose my mistake was not thinking of my phone as an actual phone. I should really write myself a note to remind me of that. Hey, maybe the phone has some program that can help. Now where the hell did I leave that damned thing this time? Wherethehellwasi.Com Doofus on Line One {new window}   Www.Wherethehellwasi.Com - You'd think something might have changed while I was away the past few months. With all that free time spent not writing, I should have been able to pick up a skill or two. You'd think I'd emerge from my hiatus a new and better man -- wiser, craftier, savvier. Yeah. You'd think. Meanwhile, back on our own planet... Yesterday, after I'd made up my mind to resurrect this little den of drivel, I drove over to a local pool hall for league night. Just as I was parking, my old roommate from college called. He was on a business trip, watching my favorite college hoops team on TV, and decided to give me a call to rub it in that they were down seven points at halftime at home to a team whose mascot is a goddamned arachnid reminisce. Aw. How sweet. Sort of. I sat in the car and chatted with him for awhile, until it was league time. As we wrapped up the call, I instinctively patted my pockets to make sure all the usual pants suspects were present and accounted for: Back right pocket: wallet, check! Front right pocket: keys... not there. Oh, but they're in the ignition. Of course. Check. Front and center: everybody's home, zipper all the way up, checkamundo. Front left pocket: cell phone.... missing. Shit. Where the hell did I leave the cell phone? As my friend and I said our goodbyes (yes, that's right, over the phone, I know you can see it coming and there's nothing I can do now to hide it), I mentally walked through when I'd seen the phone last. 'I had it when I left the house this morning... played with it during the staff meeting, yep... three hour bathroom break to play tetris, and then... oh, right -- I had to plug it in to recharge the battery. Oh dear lord, my phone's still at the office!' Thank the gods I have the one feeble brain cell still churning, or I'd have said all that out loud. Which means the end of our conversation would have gone something like this: Me: Sorry buddy, I've got to run. I just realized I left my phone at work. Him: Okay, sure-- wait. Your phone? Me: Yeah, and it's new, too. I'd hate to lose it. Him: Your cell phone, we're talking about? Me: Right. I've really got to go and look for it, pronto. Him: Dude. How the hell did you ever make it out of freshman year? "You ever seen a neuron commit seppuku? It's not pretty." As it was, it took me another full minute or so to realize that the phone wasn't in my pocket because, obviously, it was in my stupid hand. Another few seconds and I would have had the unenviable dilemma of trying to put the car back in gear to go find my cell phone while figuring out where to put my cell phone so I could drive. And I don't think that last brain cell would have stood for that. You ever seen a neuron commit seppuku? It's not pretty. In my defense, all I can say is that last night is one of the first times in the month I've had my new phone that I've actually used it as a phone. It's one of those fancy new Googly doohickeys, and though I use it for plenty of other nonsense on a daily basis, it's rare that I make the actual wireless talky-talky on it. So I was as surprised as anyone to discover that the phone missing from my pocket was, in fact, plastered to my cheek. What a novel concept. Come to think of it, I'm a little surprised that I have the phone in the first place. I'm not exactly what you call an 'early adopter' of new technology. I had the mobile phone it replaced for a number of years -- it was a rotary-dial model and the size of a small doghouse, if that tells you anything. The phone before that, I picked up cheap sometime in the Cenezoic era; if the string hadn't broken completely off the tin can handset, I probably would have never traded it in. But the draw of the Googly phone was too much; I bought it the very day it went on sale. Changed carriers to get it, too. (Technically -- this is merely technically, now, understand -- but technically, I 'camped out' to get it. Which means I accidentally showed up twenty minutes before the store opened and had to wait in line behind some Asian kid and his mom, a gaggle of RenFaire rejects and a guy whose nickname at some point in his life, I'm certain, was 'Jughead'. And probably still is. Rubbing shoulders with royalty, I was. And I wonder why I don't 'camp out' for things more often.) Anyway, the thing that really drew me to this phone is how open it is. Without getting into all of the mumbo jumboterica, the key is that people who want to write nifty little programs for it can have access to just about anything they want. The address book. The GPS. Wireless connections. Credit card numbers. Your DNA sequence. Pretty much everything. And what a load off an already-taxed mind, let me tell you. Oh sure, they said at the store, this little baby doesn't do anything now. Nothing at all, really, but sit there and look not-nearly-pretty-enough-for-some-picky-people. But some day... some day Real Soon Now™, the world will be your cell phone's oyster. You want to surf the web? You got it. Pinpoint on a map where someone's calling from? They'll figure out a way. Play a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War? Greetings, Dr. Falken. Why, in the not-so-distant future, they said, you'll be able to program this system to ring an alarm to wake you in the morning, bring you Eggos and juice in bed, and toss a pair of fresh underpants in the dryer to warm to your liking. (Of course, you'll need a hardware upgrade for that last bit of functionality. And additional carrier charges may apply, if your laundry room happens to be in a roaming area. Also, I'd probably get the phone with a software glitch, and wind up with my Fruit of the Looms covered in syrup and wrinkly waffles stuffed down my pants. And I've long said I'm never letting that happen. Again. Not after the Great Denny's Fiasco of '06.) So I suppose my mistake was not thinking of my phone as an actual phone. I should really write myself a note to remind me of that. Hey, maybe the phone has some program that can help. Now where the hell did I leave that damned thing this time?
Doofus on Line One [Where the Hell Was I?] {...} Life, from a comic perspective. Original articles, humor, & funny stories daily from an aspiring Boston standup comedian. {...}
Published: November 20, 2008, 4:48 am - Indexed: November 21, 2008, 12:08 pm - Page Size: 63KB
Category: Computers > Internet > On the Web > Weblogs > Personal > W

]]> Computers > Internet > On the Web > Weblogs > Personal > W {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Don't believe the Hype: Will newspapers distributing Bossie's DVD report on its falsehoods? http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/don-t-believe-the-hype-will-newspapers-distributing-20081073035.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/don-t-believe-the-hype-will-newspapers-distributing-20081073035.htm Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:01:51 GMT In an October 28 blog post, Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent reported that "Citizens United, the conservative group headed by notorious Whitewater scandalmonger David Bossie, is distributing," in newspapers in Ohio, Nevada, and Florida, "hundreds of thousands" of copies of a DVD titled Hype: The Obama Effect, "attacking" Sen. Barack Obama. A Media Matters for America analysis of Hype finds that it contains numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations of Obama's record. Further, Bossie's own integrity is in question -- he was reportedly fired from his position as an investigator for Rep. Dan Burton's (R-IN) House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 1998 for his alleged role in the release of selectively edited transcripts of former Clinton administration official Webster Hubbell's prison conversations. At the time the allegations regarding the transcripts surfaced, Bossie's actions drew sharp criticism from members of his own party, as Media Matters noted. On October 29, the Associated Press reported on the distribution of the DVD and quoted Bossie's assertion that "[w]e think it's a truthful attack" and that "[p]eople can take it anyway they want," but gave no indication that it contains numerous instances of misinformation or that Bossie left the House committee amid allegations of deception. According to Sargent's report, newspapers that already have or plan to distribute Hype include The Columbus Dispatch, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), Palm Beach Post and Las Vegas Review-Journal. Newspapers that distribute the DVD should consider their obligation to provide readers with information that discredits it. Falsehoods and misrepresentations in Hype include the following (listed in the order they appear in the DVD): Ballot challenges Discussing Obama's 1996 run for the Illinois state Senate, David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama, says in Hype: FREDDOSO: He [Obama] challenged each and every one of her [then-incumbent Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer] 1,580 signatures. He challenged all of the 1,899 signatures of another candidate. And then there was yet another candidate. Obama threw all of his opponents off the ballot. That was how he got elected. He was elected to the state Senate by denying voters a choice. But neither Freddoso nor any other Hype cast member points out that Obama's opponents in the 1996 Democratic primary for Illinois' 13th District were removed from the ballot because they didn't submit the requisite number of legitimate signatures. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, some of Palmer's signatures were reportedly disqualified because they were from voters who lived outside the 13th District, and she reportedly acknowledged at the time that her signatures had not been properly collected. Additionally, another of Obama's opponents, Gha-Is Askia, has reportedly said that he "now suspects" some of the signatures his campaign collected were forged. Freddoso similarly claims in his book that Obama "thr[ew] all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality," citing as purported evidence sources that note the ballot issues alleged above, but omitting some information included in those media accounts that undermines his claim. Further, contrary to Freddoso's suggestion in Hype that Obama's actions were unusual, as Media Matters noted when CNN labeled Obama an "avid student of Chicago-style politics," Sen. John McCain also reportedly challenged signatures on petitions in at least two U.S. Senate races. Ethics reform Hype's narrator asserts that Obama "exaggerates his role with many bills, including an ethics reform bill that faced little opposition and was handed to him as a favor by his political godfather, state Senator Emil Jones." Shortly thereafter, Freddoso asserts: "There are many cases in politics where conservatives and liberals find common ground, where they come together around issues of reform and good government. And basically every time that happens, Barack Obama's on the other side fighting them." But contrary to his assertion in the film, in his book, Freddoso cites the 1998 Illinois ethics law that the Hype narrator referenced -- which the Republican-controlled Illinois state Senate passed by a vote of 52-4 -- as a "real accomplishment for Obama in the name of reform." Moreover, in the book, Freddoso characterizes the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which Obama co-sponsored with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), as Obama's "most notable accomplishment in Washington." Freddoso writes that the bill "helped expose to the sunlight the congressional practice of 'earmarking' " and also states: "Coburn and Obama's bill, approved over the objection of some of Capitol Hill's worst porkers, really was a small victory for open government and bipartisanship." National Journal rankings In Hype, U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone falsely asserts: "The National Journal ratings are done on the basis of just about every roll-call vote in the Senate, and they rank the senators relative to one another. And the most recent National Journal rating did show Barack Obama as the number-one most liberal senator." In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, the Journal based its rankings not on "just about every roll-call vote in the Senate" in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that used all 388 non-unanimous votes cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology placed Obama in a tie with his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, for the ranking of 10th most liberal senator. Social Security taxes While the video pans across a photo of a placard reading "Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution," the Hype narrator asserts that under an Obama administration, "Critics expect that every family that earns more than $100,000 per year will face a potentially irrevocable change in their tax burden." Fox News political analyst Dick Morris then states: "The top [marginal income tax] rate now is 35 percent, it'll go up to 40. He [Obama] wants to impose Social Security taxes on income above 100,000. Right now it cuts off at 100,000. That's another 12 percent." In fact, in proposing a higher cap on income that is subject to Social Security taxes, Obama included a "doughnut hole" that exempts income between the current cap of $102,000 and $250,000. Obama stated in a June 13 speech of his Social Security proposal: "We should exempt anyone making under $250,000 from this increase, so it will not burden the middle class. Anybody under $250,000 would not be affected whatsoever. Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my plan." Indeed, while Hype purported to cite the Tax Policy Center (TPC), the most recent TPC analysis of Obama's tax proposals stated: "We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold." Moreover, contrary to Hype's suggestion that Obama plans to raise income taxes on those earning "more than $100,000 per year," Obama has proposed raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. Capital gains tax Hype shows a clip of ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson's assertion to Obama during the April 16 Democratic presidential debate, "But history shows when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up." Morris also asserts in the film, "There have been three times the capital gains tax has been cut in our recent history. Each time, revenues rose by between 40 and 50 percent, because when the tax rate drops, the velocity of the transactions increases." In fact, notwithstanding a potential short-term revenue increase, numerous economists -- including N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- have challenged the assertion that cuts in the capital gains tax raise revenue in the long term. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years. The Hype narrator goes on to assert, "According to The Wall Street Journal, the IRS reported that in 2005, 47 percent of all tax returns that reported capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000. If you include households with incomes under $100,000, 79 percent of all 2005 tax returns reported capital gains. So, under President Obama, three-quarters of households would have their capital gains taxes double." In fact, Obama has proposed raising taxes -- capital gains and incomes taxes -- only on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000 per year and families with incomes of more than $250,000 per year. Taxes on small business owners The Hype narrator asserts, "With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, every small business in America will get an automatic tax hike, and with a President Obama planning to raise self-employment taxes, two-thirds of the nation's small business income may be taxed at a rate of 50 percent." In fact, less than 2 percent of taxpayers declaring small business income would see a tax increase in 2009 under Obama's plan, according to estimates by the TPC. Again, Obama has proposed raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. As Media Matters has noted, according to estimates by the TPC, 1.9 percent of tax filers declaring small-business income in 2009 will be in the top two income-tax brackets -- which currently includes all individuals earning more than $160,850 and all families earning more than $195,850. Additionally, conservative radio host Armstrong Williams asserts in Hype: "[W]hat he [Obama] doesn't understand, it is the small business owner in this country with four or five employees that is the backbone of this country, that need tax breaks, that need the capital gains breaks." In fact, Obama has proposed "tax breaks" for small business owners, including the "Obama Small Business Health Tax Credit," a "refundable credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees." Immigration reform Hype's narrator asserts that "Obama favors what he calls comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship. In other words, some form of amnesty for the 12 to 20 million people who violated U.S. immigration laws." The narrator also says, "According to a Rasmussen poll, just 30 percent of Americans would favor legislation that focused exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States." But that polling result is not a response to Obama's position, which is not "focused exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States." Indeed, while Obama's "Plan for Immigration" includes "allow[ing] undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens," it also includes "preserv[ing] the integrity of our borders," "cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants," and "do[ing] more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration." "Centralized government [health care] program" Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Townhall.com contributing editor, falsely claims in Hype that, on health care, Obama "says that he's for the -- for families and for the working individual, but then he talks about a centralized government program that hasn't worked in Canada, hasn't worked in England, that has actually taken the freedom from the consumer, and limited the choices." In fact, Obama does not support a "centralized government [health care] program" similar to Canada's or England's; rather, Obama's plan allows individuals to keep their current insurance if they so choose or enroll in either an "approved private plan" or "the new public plan, which will offer benefits similar to what every federal employee and member of Congress gets." According to the Office of Personnel Management, federal employees are able to choose from "the widest selection of health plans in the country." A Q&A released by the Obama campaign says: "His plan will not tell you which doctors to see or what treatments to get. Under the Obama health care plan, you will be able to keep your doctor and your health insurance if you want. No government bureaucrat will second-guess decisions about your care." As The New York Times reported in a May 3 article, the claim that Obama is "proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain ... is incorrect." Similarly, PolitiFact.com noted that "Obama's plan keeps the free-market health care system intact, particularly employer-based insurance. It is not a goverment-run [sic] program and is very different from the health care systems run by the government in some European countries." Votes on abortion-related bills Hype interviews anti-abortion rights activist and WorldNetDaily.com columnist Jill Stanek about Obama's opposition to so-called "born alive" bills during his time as an Illinois state senator. As purported evidence of the necessity for such bills, Stanek alleges that babies born despite attempted abortions were abandoned without treatment in the Illinois hospital where she worked -- including in a soiled utility room. However, as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, when tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that infants born alive at the hospital were abandoned without treatment, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) reportedly said it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of existing Illinois law. In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn further wrote: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad Hype's narrator claims that "[w]hen MoveOn.org attacked General [David] Petraeus, the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn the effort. Senator Obama did not vote." As Media Matters has documented, Obama did not vote on an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that, in the words of the amendment, "repudiate[d] the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org." However, Obama did vote for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the MoveOn.org ad, along with other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces. The Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." Of the MoveOn.org ad, it stated: "On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States." It also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) concerning his military service, as well as attacks on former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), a veteran. Farrakhan and Trumpet Newsmagazine award Hype's narrator states that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is a "concern" for Obama. As evidence, the narrator states that in "December of 2007, while Senator Obama was still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, its Trumpet Newsmagazine announced the recipient of its lifetime achievement award." Newsmax.com chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler then states that "Obama kissed it off by saying, 'Well, that award was for Farrakhan's work with ex-offenders.' " But Obama did not merely refer to "Farrakhan's work with ex-offenders," as Kessler suggested. In his statement, Obama also denounced Farrakhan's "anti-Semitic statements" and said the magazine award "is not a decision with which I agree." From Obama's January 15 statement: I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree. "Preferential" loan rate Hype's narrator asserts that it "has recently been revealed by Joe Stephens of The Washington Post that Senator Obama received a preferential rate on his super-jumbo loan for the purchase of their Hyde Park mansion from Northern Trust." But as Media Matters and numerous others noted, the Post article provided no evidence that Obama had received special treatment from Northern Trust. The Politico's Ben Smith wrote, "There's no evidence that they [the Obamas] dealt with the bank through a special side door for powerful people." While the Post reported that the interest rate the Obamas received was "below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago," Hype does not mention that the article also quoted a Northern Trust vice president saying that "the rates offered to Obama were 'consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time.' " As Media Matters noted, the very concept of an "average" rate means that a substantial number of loans would have been made at interest rates below the average level, as well as a substantial number above that level, and does not suggest that rates below average -- if, in fact, the Obamas received a below-average rate -- resulted from preferential treatment. Nor does Hype mention that following the publication of the Post article, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that the Northern Trust vice president quoted in the article told her that " 'any reasonably savvy borrower should have been able to do better than average. That context was missing' from the story." Additionally, Columbia Journalism Review's Justin Peters wrote that "there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. ... [T]he end result was a story that raises more questions than it answers. And the questions have more to do with the Post's news judgment than they have to do with Barack Obama." Huckabee on taxes Fox News host Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, claims in Hype: "If you want to have more taxes taken out of your check, Obama's your choice." However, as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers and raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. Indeed, the TPC -- whose logo appears earlier in the film -- concluded that compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers." Additionally, McCain's chief economic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." "Citizen of the World" In Hype, Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, falsely suggests that Obama presented himself only as a "citizen of the world" in a July 24 speech in Berlin. Corsi says: "I sometimes wonder if the world is a big enough environment for Obama's ego. When Obama comes to Europe and proclaims he's a 'citizen of the world,' well, that might in Obama's world be a good thing to say, but I'm not sure that Americans want to elect as president a citizen of the world." Contrary to Corsi's suggestion, however, Obama explicitly said he was a "proud citizen of the United States" as well as a "fellow citizen of the world" in the speech. Obama said: "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world." As Media Matters has noted, President Ronald Reagan referred to himself similarly in a June 17, 1982, speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Reagan said: "I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world." Hype's executive producer and cast As Media Matters has noted, Bossie, the executive producer of Hype and president of Citizens United, was reportedly fired from his position on Burton's House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 1998 for his alleged role in releasing selectively edited transcripts of Hubbell's prison conversations. The transcripts had been edited to remove certain comments Hubbell made indicating that Hillary Clinton had done nothing wrong. At the time, The Washington Post reported that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) told Burton: "I'm embarrassed for you, I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the [House Republican] conference at the circus that went on at your committee." Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert reported on Salon.com that Bossie's alleged tactics in investigating the Clintons had caused controversy as early as 1992, when "President George H.W. Bush, repudiating Bossie's tactics, filed an FEC complaint against Bossie's group after it produced a TV ad inviting voters to call a hot line to hear (almost certainly doctored) tape-recorded conversations between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers." One of the people appearing in Bossie's film to attack Obama is Corsi, whose Obama Nation was thoroughly debunked and widely discredited by Media Matters, the Obama campaign, various media outlets, and even some conservatives. Corsi -- who has previously made inflammatory comments about Islam, Muslims, and Catholicism -- was reportedly scheduled to promote The Obama Nation on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, a radio program described by its own producers as representing "a philosophy that is pro-White." Corsi had appeared on the program in the past, but did not appear on August 17. According to a post on Political Cesspool host James Edwards' blog, Corsi's publicist informed the show that Corsi was canceling his appearance because of a change in his "travel plans." Since the publication of The Obama Nation, Corsi has aggressively promoted (without evidence) several conspiracy theories regarding Obama. For instance, Corsi suggested that the true purpose of Obama's recent trip to Hawaii was not to visit his ailing grandmother, but to address rumors -- widely debunked -- that Obama has failed to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate. Additionally, Corsi baselessly blamed his detention and deportation by Kenyan authorities on Obama. As Media Matters has documented, Stanek, who also appears in Hype, has suggested that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; supported billboards in Tanzania with the words "Faithful Condom User" next to a picture of a large skeleton, which aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and cited a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China. In a blog post about that report, Stanek said, "I think this stuff is happening." Stanek has also repeatedly made the false claim that Obama "supports infanticide." From Hype: The Obama Effect: NARRATOR: Frustrated with the lack of change, the young organizer decided a law degree was the way to make change. When that didn't work out the way he'd hoped, he decided he needed a more influential platform to really make changes. FORMER STATE SEN. STEVE RAUSCHENBERGER: The first time I met Barack Obama was at a fundraiser for the senator that he replaced, Senator Alice Palmer, who, while I was there, she introduced to the crowd there her likely successor, Barack Obama, this law lecturer from the University of Chicago. NARRATOR: Alice Palmer groomed Barack Obama to take her place in the Illinois state Senate when she ran for Congress. However, when she lost her congressional bid, Palmer assumed that her protégé would step aside and let her run for her old seat. Though a staunch ally to this point, Obama followed self-interest in true [Saul] Alinsky style. RAUSCHENBERGER: Alice filed to rerun in her state Senate seat, and, interestingly, Barack challenged her petitions. FREDDOSO: He challenged each and every one of her 1,580 signatures. He challenged all of the 1,899 signatures of another candidate. And then there was yet another candidate. Obama threw all of his opponents off the ballot. That was how he got elected. He was elected to the state Senate by denying voters a choice. [...] NARRATOR: Senator Obama exaggerates his role with many bills, including an ethics reform bill that faced little opposition and was handed to him as a favor by his political godfather, state Senator Emil Jones. Additionally, Jones took racial-profiling and videotaped-confession legislation from the bills' original sponsors and gave them to Obama, who today enjoys all the credit, having done little of the work. FREDDOSO: There are many cases in politics where conservatives and liberals find common ground, where they come together around issues of reform and good government. And basically every time that happens, Barack Obama's on the other side fighting them. [...] NARRATOR: The hype of the Obama campaign wants us to believe that Chicago made the junior senator a man of the people. When you look past the crowds and applause, who are the people, and what are the politics Senator Obama stands for? OBAMA: I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. BARONE: The National Journal ratings are done on the basis of just about every roll-call vote in the Senate, and they rank the senators relative to one another. And the most recent National Journal ratings did show Barack Obama as the number-one most liberal senator. BLACKWELL: And that puts him to the left of the only proclaimed socialist in the Senate, puts him to the left of [Sen.] Teddy Kennedy [D-MA]. His agenda is trans-liberal. It is radical. [...] NARRATOR: A President Obama may affect more people more drastically on one issue more than any other: taxes. Critics expect that every family that earns more than $100,000 per year will face a potentially irrevocable change in their tax burden. MORRIS: The top rate now is 35 percent; it'll go up to 40. He wants to impose Social Security taxes on income above 100,000. Right now, it cuts off at 100,000. That's another 12 percent. And then, you have the Medicare tax that's 2.5 percent, and you have state and local taxes that are 7 or 8 percent, but they're deductible, so figure they're 5. So you add them up -- 40 and 12 and 3 and 5: 60. And that's a fundamental change. [...] HUCKABEE: It's essentially a redistribution of wealth from people who have earned it to people who haven't. GIBSON: You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. In the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. MORRIS: There have been three times the capital gains tax has been cut in our recent history. Each time, revenues rose by between 40 and 50 percent, because when the tax rate drops, the velocity of the transactions increases. More people sell, more people buy, and more people are paying the lower tax, and the revenues swell. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up. OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. MORRIS: The one time they actually raised the capital gains tax, the revenues fell by $50 billion. OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. MORRIS: In fact, the biggest single thing that Bill Clinton did to balance the federal budget was to cut the capital gains tax. NARRATOR: According to The Wall Street Journal, the IRS reported that in 2005, 47 percent of all tax returns that reported capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000. If you include households with incomes under $100,000, 79 percent of all 2005 tax returns reported capital gains. So, under President Obama, three-quarters of households would have their capital gains taxes double. WILLIAMS: He has such a disdain for the wealthy class and people who create wealth and entrepreneurs in this country. He seems to think in order to help the poor, you got to take from the so-called rich. But what he doesn't understand, it is the small business owner in this country with four or five employees that is the backbone of this country, that need tax breaks, that need the capital gains breaks. REV. JOE WATKINS (MSNBC political analyst and Republican strategist): Why would you penalize 100 million investors in the market? Why would you penalize all those men and women who've taken a risk to start a business and to succeed? Why would you penalize them? Senator Obama has said that he would increase the rate of tax on capital gains from 15 percent to 28 percent. That would nearly double it. That's a massive disincentive for people to invest and to succeed. NARRATOR: With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, every small business in America will get an automatic tax hike, and with a President Obama planning to raise self-employment taxes, two-thirds of the nation's small business income may be taxed at a rate of 50 percent, according to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. [...] NARRATOR: In addition to a liberal ideology on taxes, when you get past the hype, Senator Obama's position on illegal immigration would result in change most Americans oppose. Obama favors what he calls comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship. In other words, some form of amnesty for the 12 to 20 million people who violated U.S. immigration laws. WILLIAMS: His position on immigration, just like all these Democrats, is just outrageous, because they are totally out of touch with the American people. NARRATOR: According to a Rasmussen poll, just 30 percent of Americans would favor legislation that focused exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. WOLF BLITZER (host of CNN's The Situation Room): Do you support driver's licenses for illegal immigrants? Senator Obama, yes or no? OBAMA: Yes, but -- BLITZER: Yes. OK. OBAMA: I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform. [...] BLACKWELL: He says that he's for the -- for families and the working individual, but then he talks about a centralized government program that hasn't worked in Canada, hasn't worked in England, that has actually taken the freedom from the consumer, and limited the choices, and actually taken the quality of medical care downward. [...] NARRATOR: Just as Senator Obama's liberal agenda pitted him against many Californians, his far-left politics and policies often pit him against many Americans. Nowhere is this more evident than his position on life. OBAMA: Change is a slogan. [break] Change will take time. [break] But change we can believe in. STANEK: I got my nursing degree when I was in my mid-30s. I applied to work at only one hospital, Christ Hospital on the southwest side of Chicago. I came to work one night, and I heard in report that we were aborting a second-trimester baby that night who had Down syndrome. I found out that the method of abortion is called induced-labor abortion, and this method of abortion sometimes results in babies being aborted alive. When a nursing co-worker told me that the baby had lived, and that she was taking the baby to our soiled utility room to die because his parents didn't want to hold him and she didn't have time to hold him that night -- and when she told me what she was doing, I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, and so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. And I remember toward the end of his life, I couldn't tell if he was alive or not unless I held him up against the light to see if I could see his heart beating through his chest wall, because their skin is so thin at that age. And after he was pronounced dead, we crossed his little arms across his chest and tied them together with a little string, and we took him to the morgue, where we took all of our other dead patients. I was instantly catapulted into becoming a pro-life activist. We approached state Senator Patrick O'Malley, who was, coincidentally, a board member at Christ Hospital. [...] NARRATOR: Having staked out his Iraq position to the pleasure of the far left, during the ABC debate, Senator Obama showed the disregard -- bordering on arrogance -- that he has for the experience and expertise of our military. GIBSON: So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order, bring them home? OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA): There's a lot at stake there, and the idea that you have a person running for president who has already made a political statement that he's gonna leave the battlefield no matter what, I think gives people that wear the uniform a reason to conclude that he doesn't have the judgment that it takes to be commander in chief. NARRATOR: When MoveOn.org attacked General Petraeus, the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn the effort. Senator Obama did not vote. [...] NARRATOR: Not only are Reverend Wright and Father [Michael] Pfleger a concern for Senator Obama, so is Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. KESSLER: But the most shocking thing is the award for lifetime achievement. NARRATOR: In December of 2007, while Senator Obama was still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, its Trumpet Newsmagazine announced the recipient of its lifetime achievement award. KESSLER: And Barack Obama kissed it off by saying, "Well, that award was for Farrakhan's work with ex-offenders." Now, that was a total lie. The article and the presentation never mentioned ex-offenders. But rather, it was for lifetime achievements. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He has been called one of the most misunderstood and misdefined leaders of our day. The Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. infers that when Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks, black America listens. WRIGHT: He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century, that's what I think about him. I said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like E.F. Hutton speaks. All black America listens. NARRATOR: However, when Minister Farrakhan speaks, often this is what people hear. FARRAKHAN: White folks, you're gonna have to give us the whole damn country. [break] We don't give a damn about no white-man law when you attack what we love. [break] You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan. [break] Yes, they exercise extraordinary control. [break] Calling someone "hymie" is not an action against Jewish people. [break] And black people will never be free in this country until they are free of that kind of control. NARRATOR: Minister Farrakhan saved his praise for Senator Obama. FARRAKHAN: He's fresh. He doesn't come with a lot of the baggage. [break] Whether you are broad enough to open your eyes, this young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better because a better man may become her leader. NARRATOR: But Senator Obama was quick to distance himself from Farrakhan. OBAMA: I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought, and we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan. TIM RUSSERT (former host of NBC's Meet the Press): Do you reject his support? OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. NARRATOR: Minister Farrakhan is one of the most controversial voices in America, and is certainly a major force in Senator Obama's Hyde Park neighborhood and surrounding district. Obama and Minister Farrakhan live within walking distance of each other. Senator Obama and Reverend Wright both attended the Nation of Islam's Million Man March, and yet, the media has never bothered to ask Obama about the existence of any past relationship between the two men, even in the wake of Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama. [...] NARRATOR: It has recently been revealed by Joe Stephens of The Washington Post that Senator Obama received a preferential rate on his super-jumbo loan for the purchase of their Hyde Park mansion from Northern Trust. ABC News' Jake Tapper commented: "Again, the Obama campaign seems to handle these things by closing their eyes, holding their breath, and hoping a starstruck media will leave it at that." FREDDOSO: The land deal is such a red flag. It's just no one is looking at what's under that red flag. [...] NARRATOR: Unity. Hope. Change. A campaign filled with promises and expectations, fueled by hype. Is there a smoking gun hidden in Senator Obama's history? That is a question we can leave to the blogosphere. We don't need a smoking gun. We don't need to fear skeletons in the closet, because beyond the hype, there are clear facts that answer any question we need to know about Senator Obama. HUCKABEE: If you want to have more taxes taken out of your check, Obama's your choice. If you want the government to be more in charge of things like your health care, where your kids go to school, and, you know, what kind of programs that we'll end up paying for, Obama's your guy. [...] CORSI: I sometimes wonder if the world is a big enough environment for Obama's ego. When Obama comes to Europe and proclaims he's a "citizen of the world," well, that might in Obama's world be a good thing to say, but I'm not sure that Americans want to elect as president a citizen of the world. Mediamatters.Org Don't believe the Hype: Will newspapers distributing Bossie's DVD report on its falsehoods? {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - In an October 28 blog post, Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent reported that "Citizens United, the conservative group headed by notorious Whitewater scandalmonger David Bossie, is distributing," in newspapers in Ohio, Nevada, and Florida, "hundreds of thousands" of copies of a DVD titled Hype: The Obama Effect, "attacking" Sen. Barack Obama. A Media Matters for America analysis of Hype finds that it contains numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations of Obama's record. Further, Bossie's own integrity is in question -- he was reportedly fired from his position as an investigator for Rep. Dan Burton's (R-IN) House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 1998 for his alleged role in the release of selectively edited transcripts of former Clinton administration official Webster Hubbell's prison conversations. At the time the allegations regarding the transcripts surfaced, Bossie's actions drew sharp criticism from members of his own party, as Media Matters noted. On October 29, the Associated Press reported on the distribution of the DVD and quoted Bossie's assertion that "[w]e think it's a truthful attack" and that "[p]eople can take it anyway they want," but gave no indication that it contains numerous instances of misinformation or that Bossie left the House committee amid allegations of deception. According to Sargent's report, newspapers that already have or plan to distribute Hype include The Columbus Dispatch, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), Palm Beach Post and Las Vegas Review-Journal. Newspapers that distribute the DVD should consider their obligation to provide readers with information that discredits it. Falsehoods and misrepresentations in Hype include the following (listed in the order they appear in the DVD): Ballot challenges Discussing Obama's 1996 run for the Illinois state Senate, David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama, says in Hype: FREDDOSO: He [Obama] challenged each and every one of her [then-incumbent Illinois state Sen. Alice Palmer] 1,580 signatures. He challenged all of the 1,899 signatures of another candidate. And then there was yet another candidate. Obama threw all of his opponents off the ballot. That was how he got elected. He was elected to the state Senate by denying voters a choice. But neither Freddoso nor any other Hype cast member points out that Obama's opponents in the 1996 Democratic primary for Illinois' 13th District were removed from the ballot because they didn't submit the requisite number of legitimate signatures. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, some of Palmer's signatures were reportedly disqualified because they were from voters who lived outside the 13th District, and she reportedly acknowledged at the time that her signatures had not been properly collected. Additionally, another of Obama's opponents, Gha-Is Askia, has reportedly said that he "now suspects" some of the signatures his campaign collected were forged. Freddoso similarly claims in his book that Obama "thr[ew] all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality," citing as purported evidence sources that note the ballot issues alleged above, but omitting some information included in those media accounts that undermines his claim. Further, contrary to Freddoso's suggestion in Hype that Obama's actions were unusual, as Media Matters noted when CNN labeled Obama an "avid student of Chicago-style politics," Sen. John McCain also reportedly challenged signatures on petitions in at least two U.S. Senate races. Ethics reform Hype's narrator asserts that Obama "exaggerates his role with many bills, including an ethics reform bill that faced little opposition and was handed to him as a favor by his political godfather, state Senator Emil Jones." Shortly thereafter, Freddoso asserts: "There are many cases in politics where conservatives and liberals find common ground, where they come together around issues of reform and good government. And basically every time that happens, Barack Obama's on the other side fighting them." But contrary to his assertion in the film, in his book, Freddoso cites the 1998 Illinois ethics law that the Hype narrator referenced -- which the Republican-controlled Illinois state Senate passed by a vote of 52-4 -- as a "real accomplishment for Obama in the name of reform." Moreover, in the book, Freddoso characterizes the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which Obama co-sponsored with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), as Obama's "most notable accomplishment in Washington." Freddoso writes that the bill "helped expose to the sunlight the congressional practice of 'earmarking' " and also states: "Coburn and Obama's bill, approved over the objection of some of Capitol Hill's worst porkers, really was a small victory for open government and bipartisanship." National Journal rankings In Hype, U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone falsely asserts: "The National Journal ratings are done on the basis of just about every roll-call vote in the Senate, and they rank the senators relative to one another. And the most recent National Journal rating did show Barack Obama as the number-one most liberal senator." In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, the Journal based its rankings not on "just about every roll-call vote in the Senate" in 2007, but on "99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale." In contrast, a study by political science professors Keith Poole and Jeff Lewis that used all 388 non-unanimous votes cast in the Senate in 2007 to determine relative ideology placed Obama in a tie with his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, for the ranking of 10th most liberal senator. Social Security taxes While the video pans across a photo of a placard reading "Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution," the Hype narrator asserts that under an Obama administration, "Critics expect that every family that earns more than $100,000 per year will face a potentially irrevocable change in their tax burden." Fox News political analyst Dick Morris then states: "The top [marginal income tax] rate now is 35 percent, it'll go up to 40. He [Obama] wants to impose Social Security taxes on income above 100,000. Right now it cuts off at 100,000. That's another 12 percent." In fact, in proposing a higher cap on income that is subject to Social Security taxes, Obama included a "doughnut hole" that exempts income between the current cap of $102,000 and $250,000. Obama stated in a June 13 speech of his Social Security proposal: "We should exempt anyone making under $250,000 from this increase, so it will not burden the middle class. Anybody under $250,000 would not be affected whatsoever. Ninety-seven percent of Americans will see absolutely no change in their taxes under my plan." Indeed, while Hype purported to cite the Tax Policy Center (TPC), the most recent TPC analysis of Obama's tax proposals stated: "We estimated the cost of Senator Obama's proposals assuming that the Social Security proposal would impose a 2 percent income tax surtax on adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and a 2 percent payroll tax paid by employers on employees' earnings above that threshold." Moreover, contrary to Hype's suggestion that Obama plans to raise income taxes on those earning "more than $100,000 per year," Obama has proposed raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. Capital gains tax Hype shows a clip of ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson's assertion to Obama during the April 16 Democratic presidential debate, "But history shows when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up." Morris also asserts in the film, "There have been three times the capital gains tax has been cut in our recent history. Each time, revenues rose by between 40 and 50 percent, because when the tax rate drops, the velocity of the transactions increases." In fact, notwithstanding a potential short-term revenue increase, numerous economists -- including N. Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- have challenged the assertion that cuts in the capital gains tax raise revenue in the long term. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years. The Hype narrator goes on to assert, "According to The Wall Street Journal, the IRS reported that in 2005, 47 percent of all tax returns that reported capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000. If you include households with incomes under $100,000, 79 percent of all 2005 tax returns reported capital gains. So, under President Obama, three-quarters of households would have their capital gains taxes double." In fact, Obama has proposed raising taxes -- capital gains and incomes taxes -- only on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000 per year and families with incomes of more than $250,000 per year. Taxes on small business owners The Hype narrator asserts, "With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, every small business in America will get an automatic tax hike, and with a President Obama planning to raise self-employment taxes, two-thirds of the nation's small business income may be taxed at a rate of 50 percent." In fact, less than 2 percent of taxpayers declaring small business income would see a tax increase in 2009 under Obama's plan, according to estimates by the TPC. Again, Obama has proposed raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. As Media Matters has noted, according to estimates by the TPC, 1.9 percent of tax filers declaring small-business income in 2009 will be in the top two income-tax brackets -- which currently includes all individuals earning more than $160,850 and all families earning more than $195,850. Additionally, conservative radio host Armstrong Williams asserts in Hype: "[W]hat he [Obama] doesn't understand, it is the small business owner in this country with four or five employees that is the backbone of this country, that need tax breaks, that need the capital gains breaks." In fact, Obama has proposed "tax breaks" for small business owners, including the "Obama Small Business Health Tax Credit," a "refundable credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees." Immigration reform Hype's narrator asserts that "Obama favors what he calls comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship. In other words, some form of amnesty for the 12 to 20 million people who violated U.S. immigration laws." The narrator also says, "According to a Rasmussen poll, just 30 percent of Americans would favor legislation that focused exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States." But that polling result is not a response to Obama's position, which is not "focused exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States." Indeed, while Obama's "Plan for Immigration" includes "allow[ing] undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens," it also includes "preserv[ing] the integrity of our borders," "cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants," and "do[ing] more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration." "Centralized government [health care] program" Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Townhall.com contributing editor, falsely claims in Hype that, on health care, Obama "says that he's for the -- for families and for the working individual, but then he talks about a centralized government program that hasn't worked in Canada, hasn't worked in England, that has actually taken the freedom from the consumer, and limited the choices." In fact, Obama does not support a "centralized government [health care] program" similar to Canada's or England's; rather, Obama's plan allows individuals to keep their current insurance if they so choose or enroll in either an "approved private plan" or "the new public plan, which will offer benefits similar to what every federal employee and member of Congress gets." According to the Office of Personnel Management, federal employees are able to choose from "the widest selection of health plans in the country." A Q&A released by the Obama campaign says: "His plan will not tell you which doctors to see or what treatments to get. Under the Obama health care plan, you will be able to keep your doctor and your health insurance if you want. No government bureaucrat will second-guess decisions about your care." As The New York Times reported in a May 3 article, the claim that Obama is "proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain ... is incorrect." Similarly, PolitiFact.com noted that "Obama's plan keeps the free-market health care system intact, particularly employer-based insurance. It is not a goverment-run [sic] program and is very different from the health care systems run by the government in some European countries." Votes on abortion-related bills Hype interviews anti-abortion rights activist and WorldNetDaily.com columnist Jill Stanek about Obama's opposition to so-called "born alive" bills during his time as an Illinois state senator. As purported evidence of the necessity for such bills, Stanek alleges that babies born despite attempted abortions were abandoned without treatment in the Illinois hospital where she worked -- including in a soiled utility room. However, as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, when tasked by the Illinois attorney general's office with investigating allegations that infants born alive at the hospital were abandoned without treatment, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) reportedly said it was unable to substantiate the allegations but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of existing Illinois law. In an August 2004 email discussion with Stanek, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn quoted IDPH spokesman Tom Shafer stating: "[W]hat they were alleging were violations of existing law. ... We took (the allegations) very seriously." Zorn further wrote: "Shafer told me that the 1999 investigation reviewed logs, personnel files and medical records. It concluded, 'The allegation that infants were allowed to expire in a utility room could not be substantiated (and) all staff interviewed denied that any infant was ever left alone.' " MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad Hype's narrator claims that "[w]hen MoveOn.org attacked General [David] Petraeus, the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn the effort. Senator Obama did not vote." As Media Matters has documented, Obama did not vote on an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that, in the words of the amendment, "repudiate[d] the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org." However, Obama did vote for an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the MoveOn.org ad, along with other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces. The Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." Of the MoveOn.org ad, it stated: "On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States." It also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) concerning his military service, as well as attacks on former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), a veteran. Farrakhan and Trumpet Newsmagazine award Hype's narrator states that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is a "concern" for Obama. As evidence, the narrator states that in "December of 2007, while Senator Obama was still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, its Trumpet Newsmagazine announced the recipient of its lifetime achievement award." Newsmax.com chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler then states that "Obama kissed it off by saying, 'Well, that award was for Farrakhan's work with ex-offenders.' " But Obama did not merely refer to "Farrakhan's work with ex-offenders," as Kessler suggested. In his statement, Obama also denounced Farrakhan's "anti-Semitic statements" and said the magazine award "is not a decision with which I agree." From Obama's January 15 statement: I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree. "Preferential" loan rate Hype's narrator asserts that it "has recently been revealed by Joe Stephens of The Washington Post that Senator Obama received a preferential rate on his super-jumbo loan for the purchase of their Hyde Park mansion from Northern Trust." But as Media Matters and numerous others noted, the Post article provided no evidence that Obama had received special treatment from Northern Trust. The Politico's Ben Smith wrote, "There's no evidence that they [the Obamas] dealt with the bank through a special side door for powerful people." While the Post reported that the interest rate the Obamas received was "below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago," Hype does not mention that the article also quoted a Northern Trust vice president saying that "the rates offered to Obama were 'consistent with internal Northern Trust rates at that time.' " As Media Matters noted, the very concept of an "average" rate means that a substantial number of loans would have been made at interest rates below the average level, as well as a substantial number above that level, and does not suggest that rates below average -- if, in fact, the Obamas received a below-average rate -- resulted from preferential treatment. Nor does Hype mention that following the publication of the Post article, Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that the Northern Trust vice president quoted in the article told her that " 'any reasonably savvy borrower should have been able to do better than average. That context was missing' from the story." Additionally, Columbia Journalism Review's Justin Peters wrote that "there doesn't seem to be much of a story here. ... [T]he end result was a story that raises more questions than it answers. And the questions have more to do with the Post's news judgment than they have to do with Barack Obama." Huckabee on taxes Fox News host Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, claims in Hype: "If you want to have more taxes taken out of your check, Obama's your choice." However, as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers and raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year. Indeed, the TPC -- whose logo appears earlier in the film -- concluded that compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers." Additionally, McCain's chief economic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." "Citizen of the World" In Hype, Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, falsely suggests that Obama presented himself only as a "citizen of the world" in a July 24 speech in Berlin. Corsi says: "I sometimes wonder if the world is a big enough environment for Obama's ego. When Obama comes to Europe and proclaims he's a 'citizen of the world,' well, that might in Obama's world be a good thing to say, but I'm not sure that Americans want to elect as president a citizen of the world." Contrary to Corsi's suggestion, however, Obama explicitly said he was a "proud citizen of the United States" as well as a "fellow citizen of the world" in the speech. Obama said: "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world." As Media Matters has noted, President Ronald Reagan referred to himself similarly in a June 17, 1982, speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Reagan said: "I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world." Hype's executive producer and cast As Media Matters has noted, Bossie, the executive producer of Hype and president of Citizens United, was reportedly fired from his position on Burton's House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 1998 for his alleged role in releasing selectively edited transcripts of Hubbell's prison conversations. The transcripts had been edited to remove certain comments Hubbell made indicating that Hillary Clinton had done nothing wrong. At the time, The Washington Post reported that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) told Burton: "I'm embarrassed for you, I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the [House Republican] conference at the circus that went on at your committee." Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert reported on Salon.com that Bossie's alleged tactics in investigating the Clintons had caused controversy as early as 1992, when "President George H.W. Bush, repudiating Bossie's tactics, filed an FEC complaint against Bossie's group after it produced a TV ad inviting voters to call a hot line to hear (almost certainly doctored) tape-recorded conversations between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers." One of the people appearing in Bossie's film to attack Obama is Corsi, whose Obama Nation was thoroughly debunked and widely discredited by Media Matters, the Obama campaign, various media outlets, and even some conservatives. Corsi -- who has previously made inflammatory comments about Islam, Muslims, and Catholicism -- was reportedly scheduled to promote The Obama Nation on the August 17 edition of The Political Cesspool Radio Show, a radio program described by its own producers as representing "a philosophy that is pro-White." Corsi had appeared on the program in the past, but did not appear on August 17. According to a post on Political Cesspool host James Edwards' blog, Corsi's publicist informed the show that Corsi was canceling his appearance because of a change in his "travel plans." Since the publication of The Obama Nation, Corsi has aggressively promoted (without evidence) several conspiracy theories regarding Obama. For instance, Corsi suggested that the true purpose of Obama's recent trip to Hawaii was not to visit his ailing grandmother, but to address rumors -- widely debunked -- that Obama has failed to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate. Additionally, Corsi baselessly blamed his detention and deportation by Kenyan authorities on Obama. As Media Matters has documented, Stanek, who also appears in Hype, has suggested that domestic violence is acceptable against women who have abortions; supported billboards in Tanzania with the words "Faithful Condom User" next to a picture of a large skeleton, which aimed to discourage condom use there in favor of abstinence and "be[ing] faithful"; and cited a report that "aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies" in China. In a blog post about that report, Stanek said, "I think this stuff is happening." Stanek has also repeatedly made the false claim that Obama "supports infanticide." From Hype: The Obama Effect: NARRATOR: Frustrated with the lack of change, the young organizer decided a law degree was the way to make change. When that didn't work out the way he'd hoped, he decided he needed a more influential platform to really make changes. FORMER STATE SEN. STEVE RAUSCHENBERGER: The first time I met Barack Obama was at a fundraiser for the senator that he replaced, Senator Alice Palmer, who, while I was there, she introduced to the crowd there her likely successor, Barack Obama, this law lecturer from the University of Chicago. NARRATOR: Alice Palmer groomed Barack Obama to take her place in the Illinois state Senate when she ran for Congress. However, when she lost her congressional bid, Palmer assumed that her protégé would step aside and let her run for her old seat. Though a staunch ally to this point, Obama followed self-interest in true [Saul] Alinsky style. RAUSCHENBERGER: Alice filed to rerun in her state Senate seat, and, interestingly, Barack challenged her petitions. FREDDOSO: He challenged each and every one of her 1,580 signatures. He challenged all of the 1,899 signatures of another candidate. And then there was yet another candidate. Obama threw all of his opponents off the ballot. That was how he got elected. He was elected to the state Senate by denying voters a choice. [...] NARRATOR: Senator Obama exaggerates his role with many bills, including an ethics reform bill that faced little opposition and was handed to him as a favor by his political godfather, state Senator Emil Jones. Additionally, Jones took racial-profiling and videotaped-confession legislation from the bills' original sponsors and gave them to Obama, who today enjoys all the credit, having done little of the work. FREDDOSO: There are many cases in politics where conservatives and liberals find common ground, where they come together around issues of reform and good government. And basically every time that happens, Barack Obama's on the other side fighting them. [...] NARRATOR: The hype of the Obama campaign wants us to believe that Chicago made the junior senator a man of the people. When you look past the crowds and applause, who are the people, and what are the politics Senator Obama stands for? OBAMA: I am somebody who is no doubt progressive. BARONE: The National Journal ratings are done on the basis of just about every roll-call vote in the Senate, and they rank the senators relative to one another. And the most recent National Journal ratings did show Barack Obama as the number-one most liberal senator. BLACKWELL: And that puts him to the left of the only proclaimed socialist in the Senate, puts him to the left of [Sen.] Teddy Kennedy [D-MA]. His agenda is trans-liberal. It is radical. [...] NARRATOR: A President Obama may affect more people more drastically on one issue more than any other: taxes. Critics expect that every family that earns more than $100,000 per year will face a potentially irrevocable change in their tax burden. MORRIS: The top rate now is 35 percent; it'll go up to 40. He wants to impose Social Security taxes on income above 100,000. Right now, it cuts off at 100,000. That's another 12 percent. And then, you have the Medicare tax that's 2.5 percent, and you have state and local taxes that are 7 or 8 percent, but they're deductible, so figure they're 5. So you add them up -- 40 and 12 and 3 and 5: 60. And that's a fundamental change. [...] HUCKABEE: It's essentially a redistribution of wealth from people who have earned it to people who haven't. GIBSON: You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. In the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. MORRIS: There have been three times the capital gains tax has been cut in our recent history. Each time, revenues rose by between 40 and 50 percent, because when the tax rate drops, the velocity of the transactions increases. More people sell, more people buy, and more people are paying the lower tax, and the revenues swell. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up. OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. MORRIS: The one time they actually raised the capital gains tax, the revenues fell by $50 billion. OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. MORRIS: In fact, the biggest single thing that Bill Clinton did to balance the federal budget was to cut the capital gains tax. NARRATOR: According to The Wall Street Journal, the IRS reported that in 2005, 47 percent of all tax returns that reported capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000. If you include households with incomes under $100,000, 79 percent of all 2005 tax returns reported capital gains. So, under President Obama, three-quarters of households would have their capital gains taxes double. WILLIAMS: He has such a disdain for the wealthy class and people who create wealth and entrepreneurs in this country. He seems to think in order to help the poor, you got to take from the so-called rich. But what he doesn't understand, it is the small business owner in this country with four or five employees that is the backbone of this country, that need tax breaks, that need the capital gains breaks. REV. JOE WATKINS (MSNBC political analyst and Republican strategist): Why would you penalize 100 million investors in the market? Why would you penalize all those men and women who've taken a risk to start a business and to succeed? Why would you penalize them? Senator Obama has said that he would increase the rate of tax on capital gains from 15 percent to 28 percent. That would nearly double it. That's a massive disincentive for people to invest and to succeed. NARRATOR: With the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, every small business in America will get an automatic tax hike, and with a President Obama planning to raise self-employment taxes, two-thirds of the nation's small business income may be taxed at a rate of 50 percent, according to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. [...] NARRATOR: In addition to a liberal ideology on taxes, when you get past the hype, Senator Obama's position on illegal immigration would result in change most Americans oppose. Obama favors what he calls comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship. In other words, some form of amnesty for the 12 to 20 million people who violated U.S. immigration laws. WILLIAMS: His position on immigration, just like all these Democrats, is just outrageous, because they are totally out of touch with the American people. NARRATOR: According to a Rasmussen poll, just 30 percent of Americans would favor legislation that focused exclusively on legalizing the status of undocumented workers already living in the United States. WOLF BLITZER (host of CNN's The Situation Room): Do you support driver's licenses for illegal immigrants? Senator Obama, yes or no? OBAMA: Yes, but -- BLITZER: Yes. OK. OBAMA: I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform. [...] BLACKWELL: He says that he's for the -- for families and the working individual, but then he talks about a centralized government program that hasn't worked in Canada, hasn't worked in England, that has actually taken the freedom from the consumer, and limited the choices, and actually taken the quality of medical care downward. [...] NARRATOR: Just as Senator Obama's liberal agenda pitted him against many Californians, his far-left politics and policies often pit him against many Americans. Nowhere is this more evident than his position on life. OBAMA: Change is a slogan. [break] Change will take time. [break] But change we can believe in. STANEK: I got my nursing degree when I was in my mid-30s. I applied to work at only one hospital, Christ Hospital on the southwest side of Chicago. I came to work one night, and I heard in report that we were aborting a second-trimester baby that night who had Down syndrome. I found out that the method of abortion is called induced-labor abortion, and this method of abortion sometimes results in babies being aborted alive. When a nursing co-worker told me that the baby had lived, and that she was taking the baby to our soiled utility room to die because his parents didn't want to hold him and she didn't have time to hold him that night -- and when she told me what she was doing, I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, and so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. And I remember toward the end of his life, I couldn't tell if he was alive or not unless I held him up against the light to see if I could see his heart beating through his chest wall, because their skin is so thin at that age. And after he was pronounced dead, we crossed his little arms across his chest and tied them together with a little string, and we took him to the morgue, where we took all of our other dead patients. I was instantly catapulted into becoming a pro-life activist. We approached state Senator Patrick O'Malley, who was, coincidentally, a board member at Christ Hospital. [...] NARRATOR: Having staked out his Iraq position to the pleasure of the far left, during the ABC debate, Senator Obama showed the disregard -- bordering on arrogance -- that he has for the experience and expertise of our military. GIBSON: So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order, bring them home? OBAMA: Because the commander in chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals. REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA): There's a lot at stake there, and the idea that you have a person running for president who has already made a political statement that he's gonna leave the battlefield no matter what, I think gives people that wear the uniform a reason to conclude that he doesn't have the judgment that it takes to be commander in chief. NARRATOR: When MoveOn.org attacked General Petraeus, the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to condemn the effort. Senator Obama did not vote. [...] NARRATOR: Not only are Reverend Wright and Father [Michael] Pfleger a concern for Senator Obama, so is Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. KESSLER: But the most shocking thing is the award for lifetime achievement. NARRATOR: In December of 2007, while Senator Obama was still a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, its Trumpet Newsmagazine announced the recipient of its lifetime achievement award. KESSLER: And Barack Obama kissed it off by saying, "Well, that award was for Farrakhan's work with ex-offenders." Now, that was a total lie. The article and the presentation never mentioned ex-offenders. But rather, it was for lifetime achievements. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He has been called one of the most misunderstood and misdefined leaders of our day. The Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. infers that when Minister Louis Farrakhan speaks, black America listens. WRIGHT: He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century, that's what I think about him. I said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like E.F. Hutton speaks. All black America listens. NARRATOR: However, when Minister Farrakhan speaks, often this is what people hear. FARRAKHAN: White folks, you're gonna have to give us the whole damn country. [break] We don't give a damn about no white-man law when you attack what we love. [break] You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan. [break] Yes, they exercise extraordinary control. [break] Calling someone "hymie" is not an action against Jewish people. [break] And black people will never be free in this country until they are free of that kind of control. NARRATOR: Minister Farrakhan saved his praise for Senator Obama. FARRAKHAN: He's fresh. He doesn't come with a lot of the baggage. [break] Whether you are broad enough to open your eyes, this young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better because a better man may become her leader. NARRATOR: But Senator Obama was quick to distance himself from Farrakhan. OBAMA: I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought, and we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan. TIM RUSSERT (former host of NBC's Meet the Press): Do you reject his support? OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. NARRATOR: Minister Farrakhan is one of the most controversial voices in America, and is certainly a major force in Senator Obama's Hyde Park neighborhood and surrounding district. Obama and Minister Farrakhan live within walking distance of each other. Senator Obama and Reverend Wright both attended the Nation of Islam's Million Man March, and yet, the media has never bothered to ask Obama about the existence of any past relationship between the two men, even in the wake of Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama. [...] NARRATOR: It has recently been revealed by Joe Stephens of The Washington Post that Senator Obama received a preferential rate on his super-jumbo loan for the purchase of their Hyde Park mansion from Northern Trust. ABC News' Jake Tapper commented: "Again, the Obama campaign seems to handle these things by closing their eyes, holding their breath, and hoping a starstruck media will leave it at that." FREDDOSO: The land deal is such a red flag. It's just no one is looking at what's under that red flag. [...] NARRATOR: Unity. Hope. Change. A campaign filled with promises and expectations, fueled by hype. Is there a smoking gun hidden in Senator Obama's history? That is a question we can leave to the blogosphere. We don't need a smoking gun. We don't need to fear skeletons in the closet, because beyond the hype, there are clear facts that answer any question we need to know about Senator Obama. HUCKABEE: If you want to have more taxes taken out of your check, Obama's your choice. If you want the government to be more in charge of things like your health care, where your kids go to school, and, you know, what kind of programs that we'll end up paying for, Obama's your guy. [...] CORSI: I sometimes wonder if the world is a big enough environment for Obama's ego. When Obama comes to Europe and proclaims he's a "citizen of the world," well, that might in Obama's world be a good thing to say, but I'm not sure that Americans want to elect as president a citizen of the world.
Media Matters - Don't believe the Hype: Will newspapers distributing Bossie's DVD report on its falsehoods? {...} The conservative activist group Citizens United is reportedly distributing Hype: The Obama Effect , a DVD attacking Sen. Barack Obama, this week in newspapers in Ohio, Nevada, and Florida. The AP quoted Citizens United president David Bossie saying of the film, "We think it's a truthful attack. People can take it anyway they want." But a Media Matters analysis of Hype finds that it contains numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations of Obama's record. Newspapers that distribute the DVD should consider their obligation to provide readers with information that discredits it. {...}
Published: October 30, 2008, 7:01 pm - Indexed: October 31, 2008, 10:17 am - Page Size: 73KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Despite attacks on media by McCain campaign, case studies show disparate coverage in McCain's favor http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/despite-attacks-on-media-by-mccain-campaign-case-20080939225.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/despite-attacks-on-media-by-mccain-campaign-case-20080939225.htm Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:07:04 GMT The media have for months reported complaints by Sen. John McCain's campaign that they have favored his opponent in their coverage of the presidential race, while making little attempt to assess accuracy of those complaints or to confirm or refute them. Media Matters for America has undertaken a review of the media's coverage of two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on Sen. Barack Obama and two stories negatively affecting or reflecting on McCain and compared the extent of media attention to each. Specifically, Media Matters compared the media's coverage of Obama's association with Chicago developer Antoin Rezko to the media's coverage of McCain's associations with donors for whom McCain reportedly facilitated land deals. Media Matters also compared coverage of Obama's association with former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers to coverage of McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy, whom Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman has described as McCain's "own Bill Ayers." Media Matters found that while the five major newspapers -- the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post -- and the three evening network news broadcasts have frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers and Rezko, they have rarely mentioned McCain's dealings with donors whom he reportedly benefited and have completely ignored McCain's association with Liddy. Indeed, since The New York Times first reported on April 22 that McCain facilitated land deals that benefited major donors, these media outlets have mentioned those deals in only six additional reports, but news reports and editorial and opinion pieces by or in those media outlets have mentioned Obama's ties to Rezko -- who was convicted in June in a case in which Obama was never accused of any wrongdoing -- 44 times during that same time period. Moreover, while these same media outlets have frequently mentioned Obama's ties to Ayers -- 69 mentions so far in 2008 -- they have yet to mention McCain's connections to Liddy, whom McCain has praised and repeatedly associated with in public and in campaign settings. In addition to serving more than four years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and the Daniel Ellsberg case, Liddy also admitted that he plotted to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotted to murder fellow Republican operative E. Howard Hunt; and plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution. Liddy also reportedly gave advice on how to shoot agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and reportedly admitted to naming shooting targets after the Clintons. Media Matters previously conducted a review of coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. versus coverage of televangelist James Hagee in The Washington Post and The New York Times and found that, from February 27, the date Hagee endorsed McCain for president, to April 30, the two papers combined published more than 12 times as many articles mentioning Wright and Obama as they did mentioning Hagee and McCain. Media Matters also documented (here, here, here, here, and here) other examples of the disparity between the media's extensive coverage of controversial comments made by Wright and other supporters of Obama and their coverage of controversial comments by Hagee and other supporters of McCain. McCain and land deals vs. Obama and Rezko McCain has reportedly facilitated several land deals that benefited wealthy developers who were major McCain donors. But while several major newspapers published initial articles concerning those deals, the media have devoted far less attention to McCain's land deals than they have paid to Obama's ties to Rezko. According to a Media Matters search of the Nexis and Factiva databases, since The New York Times' initial April 22 article, the land deals have been mentioned in only six additional news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post, and have yet to be mentioned on any evening network news program. By contrast, during the same time period, 39 news articles, editorials, or opinion pieces in those papers have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko; and the evening news broadcasts have collectively mentioned Obama and Rezko in five reports. Specifically: The Los Angeles Times has published one news article that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to five news articles mentioning Obama and Rezko. The New York Times has published its original April 22 news article and one editorial that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to seven news articles and one opinion piece mentioning Obama and Rezko. USA Today published one news article that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to two news articles mentioning Obama and Rezko. The Wall Street Journal has yet to publish a news article, editorial, or opinion piece that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but it has published six news articles and four editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama and Rezko. The Washington Post has published three news articles that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, compared to 12 news articles and two editorials or opinion pieces mentioning Obama and Rezko. ABC's World News has yet to air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but has aired three reports mentioning Obama and Rezko. The CBS Evening News has yet to air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but has aired one report mentioning Obama and Rezko. NBC's Nightly News has yet to air a report that mentioned McCain-facilitated land deals, but has aired one report mentioning Obama and Rezko. In its April 22 article, headlined "A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain," The New York Times examined McCain's relationship with Arizona developer Donald R. Diamond. The Times reported: In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate. The article described Diamond as "one of the elite fund-raisers Mr. McCain's current presidential campaign calls Innovators, having raised more than $250,000 so far." In a May 9 article headlined "McCain Pushed Land Swap That Benefits Backer," The Washington Post reported that McCain "championed legislation that will let an Arizona rancher trade remote grassland and ponderosa pine forest here for acres of valuable federally owned property that is ready for development, a land swap that now stands to directly benefit one of his top presidential campaign fundraisers." The Post continued: Initially reluctant to support the swap, the Arizona Republican became a key figure in pushing the deal through Congress after the rancher and his partners hired lobbyists that included McCain's 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks. When McCain's legislation passed in November 2005, the ranch owner gave the job of building as many as 12,000 homes to SunCor Development, a firm in Tempe, Ariz., run by Steven A. Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee. Betts said he and McCain never discussed the deal. In the article, the Post also reported that "opponents were baffled by the senator's [McCain] seemingly contradictory positions" on the legislation and quoted Janine Blaeloch, founder and director of the Western Lands Project, asserting, "The bizarre thing to me regarding McCain is, we spent a lot of time with his staff, and we all seemed to be on the same page about the problems with this swap. But somehow, John McCain kept pushing it forward." Additionally, the Post stated: Betts is among a string of donors who have benefited from McCain-engineered land swaps. In 1994, the senator helped a lobbyist for land developer Del Webb Corp. pursue an exchange in the Las Vegas area, according to the Center for Public Integrity. McCain sponsored two bills, in 1991 and 1994, sought by donor Donald R. Diamond that yielded the developer thousands of acres in trade for national parkland. In a May 19 article, USA Today reported on a third McCain-facilitated land deal that benefited his political contributors, writing: McCain, who has made fighting special-interest projects a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense bill to buy land around Luke Air Force Base in a provision sought by SunCor Development, the largest of about 50 landowners near the base. SunCor representatives, upset with a state law that restricted development around Luke, met with McCain's staff to lobby for funding, according to John Ogden, SunCor's president at the time. The Air Force later paid SunCor $3 million for 122 acres near the base. It was the highest single land transaction of the private lots purchased by the government -- three times the county's assessed value and twice the military's estimated value. SunCor also donated another 122 acres. Alan Bunnell, a spokesman for SunCor's parent company, Pinnacle West Capital, said the donation was meant to minimize the company's tax bill and enhance the value of adjacent property it owns. USA Today further reported that "McCain's campaigns have received $224,000 since 1998 from donors connected to Pinnacle West, including $104,100 for his current presidential run" and that Pinnacle West's CEO, vice president and lobbyist, and former president, in addition to Betts, SunCor's president, are all McCain fundraisers. McCain and Liddy vs. Obama and Ayers According to a Media Matters search of the Nexis and Factiva databases, between January 1 and September 17, none of the five major newspapers or three evening network news broadcasts mentioned McCain's association with Liddy. By contrast, during the same time period, the five major newspapers, as well as ABC's and NBC's evening news broadcasts, have collectively broadcast or published mentions of Obama's relationship with Ayers in 69 reports, editorials, and opinion pieces. The Tribune's Chapman wrote in his May 4 column, "[B]ack in the 1970s, [Liddy] extolled violence and committed crimes in the name of a radical ideology." Writing that "Liddy's penchant for extreme solutions has not abated," Chapman went on to note that, in 1994, Liddy "gave some advice to his listeners" on how to shoot and ATF officials. Chapman further wrote that "[f]ar from repudiating him [Liddy], McCain has embraced him": What McCain didn't mention is that he has his own Bill Ayers -- in the form of G. Gordon Liddy. Now a conservative radio talk-show host, Liddy spent more than 4 years in prison for his role in the 1972 Watergate burglary. That was just one element of what Liddy did, and proposed to do, in a secret White House effort to subvert the Constitution. Far from repudiating him, McCain has embraced him. How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 this year. Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Incidents in Liddy's past include: Felony convictions. As The Washington Post wrote in its online section about the Watergate break-in scandal, "Liddy was convicted for his role in the Watergate break-in, for conspiracy in the Daniel Ellsberg case and for contempt of court, spending about four and a half years in prison. In 1986, a federal appeals court found Liddy liable for $20,499 in back taxes on Watergate slush-fund money, rejecting his claim that his benefits did not exceed $45,000. As one of the White House 'plumbers,' Liddy spent about $300,000 engineering political dirty tricks and the Watergate break-in." Liddy plotted to murder journalist Jack Anderson. In a 2004 article in the British newspaper The Independent, Liddy was quoted discussing his never-implemented plans to kill Anderson: He [Liddy] is famous in the US as the most fiercely loyal of Richard Nixon's "plumbers", one of the agents sent to illegally burgle, drug and libel the President's internal opponents. "The war in Vietnam was fought on the streets of America too," he says. "It was lost here at home, by people who didn't have the Will to win. We had to get the people who wanted America to lose." Including killing columnists? "If they were traitors as Jack Andersen [sic] was, directly helping the enemy, then yes." In his 1980 autobiography, Will: The Autobiography of G. Gordon Liddy (St. Martin's Press, November 1996), Liddy wrote that he and GOP operative Hunt had become convinced that Anderson had compromised an overseas intelligence source's safety and must be assassinated: I took the position that, in a hypothetical case in which the target had been the direct cause of the identification and execution of one of our agents abroad, halfway measures were not appropriate. How many of our people should we let him kill before we stop him, I asked rhetorically, still not using Anderson's name. I urged as the logical and just solution that the target be killed. Quickly. [...] I submitted that the target should just become a fatal victim of the notorious Washington street-crime rate. No one argued against that recommendation and, at Hunt's suggestion, I gave [then-CIA deputy director of Medical Services] Dr. [Edward] Gunn a hundred-dollar bill, from Committee to Re-Elect the President intelligence funds, as a fee for his services. I took this to be to protect Dr. Gunn's image as "retired." Afterward Hunt and I discussed the recommendation further. It was decided to include the suggestion that the assassination of Jack Anderson be carried out by Cubans already recruited for the intelligence arm of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. [Pages 208-209] According to Liddy, when Hunt worried that his superiors would not trust those operatives to carry out the assassination, Liddy said he would be willing to carry out the plot himself: I thought about the damage Anderson was doing to our country's ability to conduct foreign policy. Most of all, I thought of that U.S. agent abroad, dead or about to die after what I was sure would be interrogation by torture. If Hunt's principal was worried, I had the answer. "Tell him," I said, "if necessary, I'll do it." [Page 210] Hunt confirms the murder plot in his own book, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond (Wiley, February 2007): Liddy and I, feeling that Anderson had done such harm to the country by exposing foreign-based CIA agents who might be imprisoned and/or killed, spent a lot of time concocting ways to get rid of the pesky journalist, even trying to cook up a way to get him to ingest LSD through his skin from his steering wheel so that he would crash his car. A CIA specialist, however, assured me that skin was an inadequate delivery system, so the plan did not move forward. Still, Liddy was primed and ready to go it alone, planning an assassination if [Attorney General John] Mitchell would just give the word. Ultimately, the attorney general aborted the operation and the muckraker in question outlived most of his adversaries, dying in December 2005 at the age of eighty-three from Parkinson's disease. [Page 199] Liddy participated in Ellsberg psychiatrist break-in, prepared to kill someone "if necessary." After military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, Liddy and Hunt organized a break-in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office in an attempt to obtain files on Ellsberg. Liddy wrote in Will: I can run for miles, and there were numerous deeply shadowed hiding places in the area from which I could pause to warn the men inside with the transceiver. Only if there were no other recourse would I have used the knife, but use it I would, if I'd had to; I had given my men word that I would protect them. For the period of the actual breaking and entering, I posted myself in a narrow space between two buildings concealed by more shrubbery, from which I could see clearly the area of the break-in, all of the private, and much of the public parking lot. [Page 167] [...] I was completely candid with him [Egil (Bud) Krogh] in my report, showing him everything: the suitcase, tools, even the knife I had carried. He asked me, incredulous, "Would you really have used it -- I mean, kill somebody?" "Only if there were absolutely no other way. But yes, I would, if necessary to protect my men. I gave them my word I'd cover them." [Page 169] Liddy also wrote in Will that he and Hunt plotted to drug Ellsberg: According to Hunt, Daniel Ellsberg was scheduled to speak at a fund-raising dinner to be held in Washington, and [Nixon chief counsel] Chuck Colson thought it an opportunity to discredit him. The dinner would be well attended by media opinion-shapers and the speech would get wide coverage. Could ["[o]ur organization"] ODESSA drug Ellsberg enough to befuddle him, make him appear a near burnt-out drug case? Hunt and I studied the matter and developed a plan to infiltrate enough Cuban waiters into the group serving the banquet to be able to ensure that one of our people would serve Ellsberg at the dais. One of the earliest dishes on the menu was soup. A warm liquid is ideal for the rapid absorption and wide dispersal of a drug, and the taste would mask its presence. Hunt was certain that he could provide men from the Miami Cuban community who'd worked at major Florida hotels; the drug, a fast-acting psychedelic such as LSD 25, he said he could get from the CIA together with a recommendation of the dose necessary to have Ellsberg incoherent by the time he was to speak. [Page 170] The drug plan was not carried out because, according to Liddy, "our superiors had waited too long" to approve it and "[t]here was no longer enough lead time." [Page 170] Liddy plotted with "gangland figure" to murder Hunt, a government witness. While in prison, Liddy came to the conclusion that White House officials might want his partner, Hunt, killed rather than risk Hunt cooperating with the Watergate grand jury. Liddy wrote in Will that he made plans to carry out such an assassination order: By now I knew that the fee for a killing in the D.C. jail was two "boxes." I'd be an immediate suspect were Hunt to be killed, so it would have to be a contract sanction and I'd have to arrange an airtight alibi. That would be easy; just have myself put back in deadlock prior to the event. It wouldn't do, however, to go around soliciting Hunt's execution. Prisons are filled with informers. For that reason I sought the advice of a gangland figure I knew and could trust. My friend was sharp and as soon as I began to broach the subject, he nodded his understanding but jumped to the conclusion I was referring to [James] McCord, now free on bond. He offered immediately to have McCord shot. I had to explain that I appreciated his offer but had someone else in mind. [...] I explained carefully to my friend that I had not yet received orders to kill Hunt, and that under no circumstances was he to be harmed without my specific authorization, which I would not give in the absence of unequivocal orders from my superiors. [Page 309] Liddy wrote that after Hunt cooperated with investigators, he awaited an order to kill him, but "because the message never came, Hunt lives" [Page 311]. Liddy plotted to "firebomb[]" Brookings Institution. Liddy and Hunt believed that because of Ellsberg's past association with the Brookings Institution, classified or sensitive documents might be stored in the organization's security vault. Their plan to retrieve these supposed materials involved firebombing the building: We devised a plan that entailed buying a used but late-model fire engine of the kind used by the District of Columbia fire department and marking it appropriately; uniforms for a squad of Cubans and their training so their performance would be believable. Thereafter, Brookings would be firebombed by use of a delay mechanism timed to go off at night so as not to endanger lives needlessly. The Cubans in the authentic-looking fire engine would "respond" minutes after the timer went off, enter, get anybody in there out, hit the vault, and get themselves out in the confusion of other fire apparatus arriving, calmly loading "rescued" material into a van. The bogus engine would be abandoned at the scene. The taking of the material from the vault would be discovered and the fire engine traced to a cut-out buyer. There would be a lot of who-struck-John in the liberal press, but because nothing could be proved the matter would lapse into the unsolved-mystery category. [Page 171-72] According to Liddy, the plan was not approved by the White House because it was deemed "[t]oo expensive" [Page 172]. Liddy borrowed terminology from Nazis in outlining plan to thwart "attack" by "leftist guerillas." Before the 1972 Republican National Convention in San Diego, Liddy met with a group of White House officials, including Attorney General John Mitchell, to discuss ways to thwart an "attack" on the convention by "leftist guerrillas": I proposed to emulate the Texas Rangers by identifying the leaders through intelligence before the attack got under way, kidnap them, drug them, and hold them in Mexico until after the convention was over, then release them unharmed and still wondering what happened. Leaderless, the attack would be further disrupted by faked assembly orders and messages, and if it ever did get off the ground it would be much easier to repel. The sudden disappearances, which I labeled on the chart in the original German, Nacht und Nebel ("Night and Fog"), would strike fear into the hearts of the leftist guerrillas. The chart labeled the team slated to carry out the night and fog plan as a "Special Action Group" and, when John Mitchell asked, "What's that?" and expressed doubt that it could perform as I had explained, I grew impatient. [...] With [then-Nixon deputy campaign director Jeb] Magruder and [then-associate deputy attorney general John] Dean out to lunch, I felt obliged to impress Mitchell with my seriousness of purpose, that my people were the kind and I was the kind who could and would do whatever was necessary to deal with organized mass violence. Both Magruder and Dean were too young to know what I was talking about, but I knew that Mitchell, a naval officer in World War II, would get the message if I translated the English "Special Action Group" into German. Given the history involved, it was a gross exaggeration, but it made my point. "An Einsatzgruppe, General," I said, inadvertently using a hard g for the word General and turning it, too, into German. "These men include professional killers who have accounted between them for twenty-two dead so far, including two hanged from a beam in a garage." [Page 197-98] According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Holocaust Encyclopedia, the Einsatzgruppen were mobile killing units organized by the Nazis for, among other things, the purpose of carrying out "the murder of those perceived to be racial or political enemies found behind German combat lines in the occupied Soviet Union." Their "victims included Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and officials of the Soviet state and the Soviet Communist party. The Einsatzgruppen also murdered thousands of residents of institutions for the mentally and physically disabled." According to Yad Vashem, "Nacht und Nebel" is a "German term used in a secret order issued by Adolf Hitler on December 7, 1941. The order stated that any underground resistance activities against the Reich carried out in Western Europe would be punished in the most severe ways. The term 'Night and Fog' referred to those underground activists from Western Europe who, as a result of this order, were to disappear into the 'fog of the night' without leaving a trace. ... According to the order, special military courts could impose the death sentence without a unanimous decision. If not sentenced to death, the defendants were to be deported to Germany, where they would disappear without a trace into concentration camps or prisons." The judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg described the purpose and effects of the decree: The territories occupied by Germany were administered in violation of the laws of war. The evidence is quite overwhelming of a systematic rule of violence, brutality and terror. On the 7th December, 1941, Hitler issued the directive since known as the "Nacht und Nebel Erlass" (Night and Fog Decree), under which persons who committed offences against the Reich or the German forces in occupied territories, except where the death sentence was certain, were to be taken secretly to Germany and handed over to the SIPO [German state security police] and SD [intelligence division of the German SS] for trial or punishment in Germany. This decree was signed by the defendant [chief of the High Command of the German Armed Forces Wilhelm] Keitel. After these civilians arrived in Germany, no word of them was permitted to reach the country from which they came, or their relatives; even in cases when they died awaiting trial the families were not informed, the purpose being to create anxiety in the minds of the family of the arrested person. Hitler's purpose in issuing this decree was stated by the defendant Keitel in a covering letter, dated 12th December, 1941, to be as follows: " Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved either by capital punishment or by measures by which the relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the fate of the criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal is transferred to Germany." Even persons who were only suspected of opposing any of the policies of the German occupation authorities were arrested, and on arrest were interrogated by the Gestapo and the SD in the most shameful manner. On the 12th June 1942 the Chief of the SIPO and SD published, through Mueller, the Gestapo Chief, an order authorising the use of "third degree" methods of interrogation, where preliminary investigation had indicated that the person could give information on important matters, such as subversive activities, though not for the purpose of extorting confessions of the prisoner's own crimes. This order provided: " ... Third degree may, under this supposition, only be employed against Communists, Marxists, Jehovah's Witnesses, saboteurs, terrorists, members of resistance movements, parachute agents, anti-social elements, Polish or Soviet Russian loafers or tramps; in all other cases my permission must first be obtained ... Third degree can, according to circumstances, consist amongst other methods of very simple diet (bread and water), hard bunk, dark cell, deprivation of sleep, exhaustive drilling, also in flogging (for more than twenty strokes a doctor must be consulted)." The brutal suppression of all opposition to the German occupation was not confined to severe measures against suspected members of resistance movements themselves, but was also extended to their families. On the 19th July, 1944, the Commander of the SIPO and SD in the district of Radom, in Poland, published an order, transmitted through the Higher SS and Police leaders, to the effect that in all cases of assassination or attempted assassination of Germans, or where saboteurs had destroyed vital installations not only the guilty person, but also all his or her male relatives should be shot, and female relatives over sixteen years of age put into a concentration camp. Liddy's proposed "Special Action Group" for the kidnappings was, in the end, not employed. Liddy's advice for shooting ATF agents. According to an April 26, 1995, CBS News transcript (retrieved from Nexis), Liddy said on his August 26, 1994, radio show: LIDDY: Well, if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. Reporting on Liddy's October 19, 1994, radio show, The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz recounted in an October 24, 1994, article: Ursula from Millerton, Pa., tells Liddy she's afraid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is coming after her gun-owning friend. Liddy calls the bureau "bottom-dwelling slugs ... a pack of nitwits out to make war on those Americans who take seriously the Second Amendment." Liddy allows that calls to "hunt down and kill" such agents is "going too far." But, he says, "shooting back is reasonable... . I have counseled shooting them in the head." According to Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, on September 15, 1994, Liddy stated: If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head. According to FAIR, Liddy said to a caller later in the show: When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms thugs come to kill your wife and children, to try to disarm you and they open fire on you. When they come at the point of a gun, force and violence, when you're going to defend yourself, use that Gerand [sic] [M-1 rifle]. That thing is 30-06, and it'll take 'em right out. According to an April 25, 1995, Associated Press article: Talk show host G. Gordon Liddy said Tuesday he gave listeners bad advice when he told them to shoot for the head if attacked by federal agents. Instead, he said, go twice for the body and then the groin. [...] Last August, Liddy counseled "head shots" to respond to an encounter with agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, because, "They've got a vest underneath." On Tuesday, he told a news conference held as part of his WJFK program that people should cooperate if authorities come to their homes with search warrants. But they should shoot back if agents shoot their way in, he said. He said experts have told him shooting for the head was a bad idea because heads are hard to hit. "So you shoot twice to the body, center of mass, and if that does not work, then shoot to the groin area," he said. "They cannot move their hips fast enough and you'll probably get a femoral artery and you'll knock them down at any rate." Asked about his ATF comments by right-wing blogger John Hawkins in December 2003, Liddy argued they had been misinterpreted: LIDDY: [A]s usual, people remember part of what I said, but not all of what I said. What I did was restate the law. I was talking about a situation in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated. Liddy acknowledged naming shooting targets after Clintons. According to the April 25, 1995, edition of NPR's All Things Considered (retrieved from Nexis), during a press conference, Liddy admitted that he named shooting targets after