Now the NRA weighs in with some lies.

[kallend 2,106]

www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 854]

"And on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example"

Enough to lose my vote!

[Amazon 7]

I have been totin guns all of my life. I grew up in a family of outdoorsmen.
I have had concealed weapons permits for many many years.

I used to be an NRA member but I dropped my subscription and membership when they became nothing more than a propoganda tool for the far right years ago.

The trouble is.. to many people who do support the second amendment are too quick to knee jerk to any and everthing the NRA tells them.

[AggieDave 6]

I got down to the point of refuting the "armor piercing ammo" section. All rifle ammo is basically "armor piercing." It depends on what definition is used and in terms of what armor. Out of your 4 basic ballistic vests people (and cops) would typically wear, basically only a L4 would stop a rifle round. .308 is a popular hunting round. 30.6 is as well. Both of those will go through even a L3 vest.

None of those rounds need to be banned. Hell, .50BMG shouldn't be banned either. If you can *afford* to have the rifle AND *afford* to shoot it more than a few times, then get after it (and can I shoot it?).

Its the same dribble, same "issues," just a different day.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[piper17 1]

Oh please....you cite a leftist organization as a source for claiming that the NRA is telling lies?

Isn't the Annenburg outfit the same one that Obama and Bill Ayres were (are) involved with and that was trying to prevent its documents from being released showing the relationship between Obama, Ayres and other lefties...you know - The Chicago Annenburg Challenge!

Read below from Patterico's Pontifications on this very subject or go to the web site -
http://patterico.com/2008/09/23/unmitigated-garbage-from-factcheckorg-on-obamas-second-amendment-record/

The summary version: FactCheck ridicules the NRA in this piece. But the NRA is careful to say: look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. And at least two of the NRA claims are backed up by references to Obama’s record. Yet FactCheck.org goes on to minimize or completely ignore Obama’s record on these points, choosing instead to concentrate on citations to Obama’s later campaign rhetoric.

1) FactCheck.org declares “false” the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. But it emerges that this claim is directly based on Obama’s “yes” answer to a the following question in a questionnaire: “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

FactCheck.org simply faults the NRA for not noting Obama’s later attempts to explain away this answer. But FactCheck.org doesn’t address the fact that Obama falsely denied even seeing the questionnaire, only to have it later emerge that an amended version had his handwriting on it.

2) FactCheck.org calls “supported” the NRA’s claim that Obama would appoint judges who share his views on the Second Amendment. As part of their evidence, FactCheck.org tells us that Obama didn’t contest the Heller decision, which upheld an individual right to bear arms. But FactCheck.org doesn’t mention that Obama’s campaign had initially said of the D.C.’s total ban on handguns in the home: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.” (Obama later tried to back away from that statement, but it is part of his record, just like his answers to the questionnaire that he had claimed he had never seen, but that turned out to bear his handwriting.)

The piece is garbage. Details in the extended entry.


First, some context. The piece criticizes the NRA, which encourages FactCheck.org to look at Obama’s record and not his rhetoric. FactCheck.org says it contacted the NRA’s director of public affairs:

He declined to speak to us except to say that the claims are based on Obama’s voting record and statements he has made in the media. “We’re comfortable with what we put on there,” Arulanandam said. “We believe our facts.”

Sounds like he agreed to make a statement; FactCheck.org just didn’t like it. And no wonder: they go on to do an entire piece on the issue that elevates Obama’s rhetoric over his record. Here are just two examples.

First, FactCheck.org ridicules the NRA’s claim that Obama plans to ban the possession, manufacture, and sale of handguns. Here is FactCheck.org’s “analysis”:

The NRA bases its claim on a disputed 1996 questionnaire that Obama’s Illinois state Senate campaign filled out for the nonprofit voting group, Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. On it, somebody filled in the word “yes” in response to the question, “Do you support legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?”

Hmm. That seems pretty solid.

But the Obama campaign said that the survey was actually filled out by his then-campaign manager who “unintentionally mischaracterized his position,” adding that Obama never saw the survey.

Oh. Well, we should probably take his word for it, then.

As we wrote previously, an amended version of the questionnaire was later submitted to the group, with Obama’s handwritten notes on it providing more detail on some of the answers. Obama clearly saw and handled this version personally and did not alter the question about banning the sale and manufacturing of guns.

Hmm. That seems pretty solid.

FactCheck.org does not mention the fact that Obama was directly questioned in a debate about his answer on the gun rights questionnaire, and denied that his handwriting was on that particular document. In fact, it was. You can learn this if you click through to one of the FactCheck.org links. But if we’re talking about taking his rhetoric at face value, doesn’t it matter that he publicly claiming something directly relevant to the issue that turned out to be false? Shouldn’t this be in the body of the FactCheck.org analysis? Apparently they don’t consider it to be important.

Nevertheless, his aides maintain that the gun-ban answer was a mistake and didn’t reflect Obama’s true position.

Oh. Well, we should probably take their word for it, then.

Imagine, those crazy NRA people, basing their claims on a questionnaire that Obama personally saw, that he knew represented his position! Why didn’t they take at face value the claims made later by his campaign, after his earlier answers came back to haunt him?

I mean: how dare they?

Second, we have FactCheck mocking as “unsupported” the NRA’s claim that Obama would “Appoint Judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary Who Share His Views on the Second Amendment.” FactCheck.org says:

The NRA’s fact sheet points out that Obama has voted against the two newest members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006. They happen to be two of the five justices that voted in favor of the Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s longstanding handgun ban this year. The New York Times has reported that Obama “favored Democratic filibusters to block many Republican nominees deemed too conservative.” But the NRA can point to no statement by Obama calling for a Second-Amendment test for his judicial appointees, and we could find none.

So never mind the justices he has opposed, because he hasn’t explicitly called for a litmus test. But what has he said?

What Obama has actually said about selecting judges is that “[w]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

Very sweet. But what has he said about the Second Amendment?

In any case, Obama says he believes the Second Amendment “creates an individual right” to bear arms. That’s at odds with some strong gun-control advocates who had argued that the Second Amendment limited the right to bear arms to a “well-regulated militia.” The Supreme Court rejected that view in its June ruling overturning the D.C. gun ban. But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Chief Justice John Roberts joined that opinion. To the dismay of gun-control advocates, Obama did not criticize the ruling. Instead, he said it “will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”

Really? Is that all he has said about the Heller case?

Once again, if you give primacy to what his recent campaign statements have been, then, by golly, he supports the Second Amendment! But if you look at his record — his past statements — then the NRA is right to be concerned.

Here’s what FackCheck.org doesn’t tell you.

The Supreme Court case in Heller says that the D.C. ban “totally bans handgun possession in the home.” That’s about as clear a Second Amendment encroachment as you can imagine.

And what did Obama’s campaign initially say about that total ban on handguns in the home? The campaign once issued a statement to the Chicago Tribune that said:

Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.

This statement proved to be a political loser, of course — and Obama later ended up trying to distance himself from it. That D.C. handgun law is not the D.C. handgun law he thought he knew.

But it’s part of his record. And if the NRA was truly elevating his record over his rhetoric, they had a completely fair point.

FactCheck.org, at this point, is worse than useless. It is positively misleading voters out there.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Oh please....you sight a leftist organization .

Do you know who Walter Annenberg is?

Only those to the right of Ghengis Khan would call him "leftist".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[grimmie 186]

He gave Gerald Ford a house on his Palm Springs country club, fairway view. Damn liberal!

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh please....you sight a leftist organization .

Do you know who Walter Annenberg is?

Only those to the right of Ghengis Khan would call him "leftist".

Of all the informative things piper had in her post you chose to reply to that point. Talk about Cherry Picking.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[piper17 1]

The foundations of a number of wealthy, philanthropic people have been hijacked by lefties over the years. The Chicago Annenburg Challenge had a close association with Bill Ayers...a domestic terrorist. That constitutes left-wing to me...but, perhaps not to you.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[grimmie 186]

Ayers is a left wing terrorist now reformed. But getting nearly 50 million dollars for Chicago area children isn't leftist nor liberal.

[piper17 1]

It is if it is being used to promote leftist thinking! So, if you consider those who are involved with the Chicago Annenburg Challenge grant - Ayers, Obama, et al - I would venture a guess that leftist ideology is exactly what is being promoted!

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[piper17 1]

and the NRA issued this rebuttal:

Factcheck And Brady Campaign Share Same Sugar Daddy Impartial? Independent? NO!

FactCheck and Brady Campaign in Bed with Annenberg Foundation

FactCheck supposedly exists to look beyond a politician's claims. Ironically, in its analysis of NRA materials on Barack Obama, these so-called "FactCheckers" use the election year campaign rhetoric of a presidential candidate and a verbal claim by one of the most zealous gun control supporters in Congress to refute facts compiled by NRA's research of vote records and review of legislative language.

There's another possible explanation behind FactCheck's positions. Just last year, FactCheck's primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for "efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry." Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005. (source)

Regardless of the cause, it's clear that while FactCheck swoons over a politician's rhetoric, NRA prefers to look at the more mundane details - like how that politician voted on a bill and what kind of impact that legislation had or may have had on law-abiding gun owners.

FactCheck claims that NRA advertisements "distort" Barack Obama's anti-gun positions, but FactCheck's own sources prove otherwise. In fact, even Obama's campaign has refused to deny his most extreme positions.

FactCheck also dismisses NRA's statements as "contrary to what [Obama] has said throughout his campaign." But as FactCheck says, "believing something doesn't make it so." And unless FactCheck is an arm of the Obama campaign, isn't it their job to find out if Obama is telling the truth?

FactCheck claim: "Obama is proposing no ...ban" on use of firearms for self-defense in the home.

FactCheck is wrong. Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing any allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.

As FactCheck notes, the bill was provoked by a case where a Wilmette, Ill. homeowner shot an intruder in self-defense in his home; the homeowner's handgun was banned by a town ordinance. (After the U.S. Supreme Court found Washington, D.C.'s similar ban unconstitutional, Wilmette repealed the ordinance to avoid litigation.)

The legislation was very plainly worded, but as limited as its protection was, Obama voted against it in committee and on the floor:

It is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another ...when on his or her land or in his or her abode or fixed place of business.

If a person cannot use a handgun for self-defense in the home without facing criminal charges, self-defense with handguns in the home is effectively banned.

Even aside from SB 2165, Obama's support for a total handgun ban (see below) would be a crippling blow to defense in the home, since (as the Supreme Court recently affirmed) handguns are "the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." (District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 2818 (2008)).

FactCheck claim: Obama "did not ...vote to 'ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."

Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).

Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."

The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.

Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.

It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

Isn't it FactCheck's job to be skeptical of politicians' claims, especially when the plain language says otherwise?

FactCheck claim: "Obama says he does not support any ... handgun ban and never has."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.

FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.

The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama supports gun licensing is "misleading."

FactCheck is wrong. Obama's fancy election-year footwork - claiming he doesn't support licensing or registration because he doesn't think he "can get that done" - isn't enough to get around his clear support for handgun registration and licensing.

What's really misleading is the idea that handgun registration isn't really gun registration. Handguns are about one-third of the firearms owned in the United States, and American gun owners know better than to think registration schemes will end with any one kind of gun.

FactCheck claim: Saying Obama would appoint judges who agree with him is "unsupported."

This FactCheck claim is just strange. Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different?

And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)


-NRA-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Annenburg unbiased? I don't think so.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[normiss 854]

We've tried to point out the inconsistencies of factcheck before....it got quiet in here.

Goose / gander and all.

[downwardspiral 0]

I guess Factcheck shouldn't have taken on the NRA.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[normiss 854]

I was a big fan of the NRA - right up until they added three additional letters and starting asking for gobs of money for everything.
When it became a lobbying group, I dropped out.
I'm surprised they can afford the mailings any longer.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Annenburg NRA unbiased? I don't think so.

Fixed it for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

Yeah, the NRA is definitely biased... they are FOR the second amendment being left the hell alone. I think the NRA (I am not a member), and Piper have done a good job trashing the factcheck apologist crap. No one can say anything about that?

You're slipping!

Oh, hello again!

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh please....you sight a leftist organization .

Do you know who Walter Annenberg is?

Only those to the right of Ghengis Khan would call him "leftist".

Of all the informative things piper had in her post you chose to reply to that point. Talk about Cherry Picking.

Or, you could say, "Talk about 'GOT NOTHIN'!' "

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

I was a big fan of the NRA - right up until they added three additional letters and starting asking for gobs of money for everything.
When it became a lobbying group, I dropped out.

I firmly believe that if it were not for the NRA (and the "ILA") you simply would not have a right to keep and bear arms--period.

They ask for gobs of money because they need gobs of money -- to counter the bullshit lies that lead to "assault weapons bans," registration schemes (like Canada's $2B debacle), and to foster support for shall-issue concealed carry laws and Castle Doctrine laws, the latter of which are found in 40 states now.

This is supposed to happen without donations of money to the cause?

George Soros gives plenty to the ANTI-gun cause. Why should you begrudge the NRA needing members' donations??

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Annenburg NRA unbiased? I don't think so.

Fixed it for you.

That is one serious delusion you got goin' there...

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Yeah, the NRA is definitely biased... they are FOR the second amendment being left the hell alone.

The NRA isn't about gun rights. They're for gun safety, hunting rights, firearms competition, and political power. They support gun-control when doing so helps their sporting contingent or political aspirations as in the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968 or granting better letter grades to anti-gun Republicans than pro-gun independants or more neutral Democrats. I stopped renewing my membership after reading an election report card and a separate instance where they ignored some significant local issue while embelishing .something unimportant.

Come to think of it they're a lot like the Republicans. Reagan signed the 1986 ban. Bush 41 was responsible for the 1989 import ban. Bush 43 decided that something like the 1994 ban could be applied to pre-existing magazines which were outside the country. The Republicans talked about being pro-gun and a repeal of the 1994 ban when they lacked the votes to override a presidential veto but stopped once Bush 43 was elected and they could actually do something.

While the NRA and Republicans sometimes slow the erosion of gun rights they rarely reclaim ground or move forwards. With or without the NRA the end result is going to be the same; they just change how long it takes to get there and the speed change isn't always slower.

If you want to belong to an actual gun rights organization you need to join JPFO or GOA.

Regardless of what cards end up in your wallet, you need to read the actual text of proposed legislation, cross-reference it with the legal code being modified (which is really easy now that everything is on the web), and think about how it will be used and abused in the future because I've yet to see a politician, group or press office which didn't filter and spin according to their own agenda. A few are honest about that spin (Time magazine said they were no longer going to be neutral in the debate about gun control) but most aren't.

Personally I'm getting sick of the whole thing.

There are bigger problems than guns. If it's crime you're worried about, drunk driving does more people in than hand guns. If it's what people do to themselves, more people commit suicide slowly with McDonalds and Marlboros than quickly with guns. If it's accidents, household cleaning supplies are a bigger problem.

People should get some perspective.

OTOH, maybe I should just accept the nanny state and try for things that might make a difference in my life.

If people are going to get their panties in a knot over my sport utility rifles and ban them, I could get upset about their sport utility vehicles which are more likely to kill me than my guns them even if I had an average chance of being a convicted felon belonging to a street gang. The current neighborhood limit is 6000 pounds on vehicles; maybe I can get that dropped to 4000 pounds. Second hand smoke is a bigger threat to me too. One of the neighboring towns is working on banning smoking in parks; that would smell nicer. Fat people too lazy to cook for themselves and without a loving spouse to feed them are driving up my taxes when they get heart attacks binging on fast food; how about a crack down on chain restaurants which displace local joints with decent menus? The state ban on trans-fat is just a start - even without real grease a 1500 calorie double cheese burger large Coke large fry combo is just too much.

That's what it boils down to. Once it's appropriate to infringe on other peoples' rights because it might make some difference in public safety it's just a question of how far you go. We'd all have more fun if we realized this and undid the damage which has already happened.

[rhys 0]

Quote

"And on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example"

Enough to lose my vote!

Your avitar confuses me, you put Homer Simson on your avitar and the Simsons regularly makes humor of the right wing, gun tot'n attitude you consistantly tell us you have in your posts.

I have pondered this while reading many of your posts.

I wonder if your face is blank when such comedy is made of your steriotype? It must go straight over it

The NRA are just campaigning for the right wing,
What better way to muster up a bunch of rednecks than to tell them they will have thier guns taken off them

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

"And on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example"

Enough to lose my vote!

As pro-gun as I am, the thought of 15-20T debt in 8 is enough to steer me away from the crusty old fart. Remember, the SCOTUS just made that decision, so they are the ultimate legislators, even if tehy are in the judicial branch.

[piper17 1]

Of course, the NRA is biased. I and four million + other citizens in this country pay them good money to be biased in support of our Second Amendment rights.

I contribute to them so they will have the financial clout to counteract the activities of the left-wing, socialist people and organizations like the Brady bunch in this country. These left-wing groups don't seem to understand that keeping and bearing arms is an individual right...despite the volumes of writings of the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights...not to mention earlier English Common Law and the recent Supreme Court decision.

An organization that claims to check/verify facts and makes it part of their name should be unbiased...unlike national organizations like the NRA...or the NEA, AFL-CIO, AMA, etc. that have a responsibility to their members to be biased in their favor and work for their interests.

Put down the Kool-Aid.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

"And on some points it is right; Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," for example"

Enough to lose my vote!

With everything going on in the US right now, you base your vote solely on a gun issue? (at least that is what I have to conclude from your post)

No wonder the US is in the state it is now.