By Jay Printz | Saturday, January 16th, 2010 at 1:22 am
Recently decided tenth amendment cases support constitutional challenges to ObamaCare. Here is evidence that my battle in Printz v. United States was not in vain, as so many liberals would have you believe! From FOXNews — An Obamacare Shocker:
….there’s another key provision in Obamacare that probably violates the Tenth Amendment: the state exchanges.
The Tenth Amendment went for so many years without being used to strike down any law that it came to be regarded as what is called a “dead letter” in the Constitution, meaning a provision that says some sort of obvious statement, but that isn’t actually used by the courts for anything.
Then, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court shocked the legal world by striking down two laws for violating the Tenth Amendment. The first was New York v. United States in 1992, where the Court struck down a federal law requiring states to pass state laws for the disposal of radioactive waste, and to issue regulations for implementing those laws. Then in Printz v. United States in 1997, the Court struck down a provision of the Brady Act — a federal gun-control law — that required state and local law enforcement to run background checks on handgun purchasers.
From these two cases emerged the anti-commandeering principle, holding that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from commandeering — or ordering — any branch of state government to do anything. The states are sovereign and answer only to their voters, not to Washington, D.C.
Therein lies the problem for the Senate’s Obamacare bill. It requires each state to pass laws setting up a statewide non-profit insurance exchanges. It then requires the states to pass regulations for implementing those laws. And it further requires the states to dedicate staff and spend state money to administer those programs.
In most respects, this is a straight-out repeat of those 1992 and 1997 cases. The main difference is that Obamacare violates the anti-commandeering principle in a far more severe and egregious way than those previous laws ever did.
This is really stunning. If New York and Printz had been decided as far back as 1910, then maybe you could imagine Congress deciding to roll the dice with a completely new Supreme Court a century later. But these are recent cases with conservative outcomes, and the only difference is that the Court has become a bit more conservative then it was in the 1990s when it decided those two cases….
The only way the Dems can get around this is to drag out the constitutional challenges until Obama, in a second term as president, may have a chance to replace two conservative Supreme Court justices with liberals.
The American public must deny Obama a second term, and the certain destruction of states’ rights.
The election in NY-23rd is about third party power, and professional politicians are trying to suppress that fact. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want the public to realize this, for obvious reasons. The media are complicit with establishment insiders, so they are not saying anything. And the bloggers, bless them, who would ordinarily be the purveyors of truth, don’t have the length and depth of political experience to understand what is going on. It requires an understanding of the legal mechanics of candidate selection and a long memory…
Let us be perfectly clear about the situation in New York’s 23rd Congressional District special election. Three distinct political parties with legal status in New York put up viable candidates:
The Republican Party nominated New York State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava in a smoke-filled room deal.
The Democratic Party nominated community activist and 30-year practicing lawyer Bill Owens.
The Conservative Party nominated community leader, business entrepreneur, and Certified Public Accountant Doug Hoffman.
The fresh-faced Hoffman, reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, has the most appeal with voters in the district weary of government excess (almost an art form in the state of New York), and has pulled ahead in the polls. The Conservative Party selected the most likable candidate and has the best message, and so they are ahead. It is as simple as that. It is a reprise of the election of US Senator James Buckley on the Conservative line in 1970, when he proved more popular than both the Republican and Democratic candidates.
There is nothing sacred about the Republican and Democratic parties. Political party organizations are not provided for in the Constitution of the United States. They are merely incorporated entities that provide for pooling money and manpower to support candidates for public office. They have acquired the veneer of “official” status by being around for a long time, but they are no more “official” than any newly minted party, which can be formed under state election law by meeting certain requirements.
For example, to put a name on the ballot in New York State requires the signatures of five percent of the registered voters in the juridiction. As of April 1, 2009, there were 15,339 registered voters in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. So volunteers had to collect valid signatures from at least 767 registered voters on “designating petitions” for Doug Hoffman to run for Congress.
Do you understand how feasible that is? Twenty people collecting 10 signatures per night for one week can collect 1400 signatures. That is easily done by going door to door in your neighborhood. Or you can just stand outside the local grocery store and collect signatures from shoppers as they enter. The totals rack up quickly. It is no more difficult than, say, selling Girl Scout cookies. And your kids can do that.
One advantage that the two so-called “major” political parties have is that they retain a cadre of volunteers trained in the collection of signatures, which have to meet certain book-keeping requirements. For instance, the person has to sign the petition in exactly the same way that his or her name appears on the voter registration. So you need to have that information before you start your rounds, but that information is a matter of public record, and the state cannot deny you access to it. The other advantage of the “major” parties is that they have established fund-raising channels. And as we see in NY-23rd, that isn’t doing them a lot of good in the face of an outraged populace.
On Thursday, February 19 of this year, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli called for a “Chicago Tea Party” while reporting from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. Within two short months, powered only by bloggers, a national “tea party” movement had organized across the country to hold rallies on tax day, April 15. Along about the 4th of July, another round of tea parties erupted across America, and sentiment grew for a march on Washington. A little over two months after that, one of the largest grass-roots crowds ever seen in the District of Columbia marched on the Capitol.
What if, instead of attending rallies, or marching on Washington, these aroused patriots had been carrying designating petitions? The whole political landscape of America could be changed within one year! And that is the 900 pound gorilla in the political closet that the Republicans and Democrats do not want you to know about or think about. It scares them witless.
All the talking heads and political hacks are painting the congressional race in NY-23rd as a rift in the Republican ranks. It is not. It is a third party candidate proving that the Republicans and Democrats can be made irrelevant in the face of tea party power. It is proving this in the full glare of the national spotlight. And the only way that the entrenched politicians can save their own bacon is by spinning the story to distract the public from the obvious truth. All the king-makers’ horses and all the king-makers’ men cannot defeat an honest tea party patriot once ordinary Americans wake up.
A poll conducted over the weekend by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. The Oct. 24-25 poll shows Conservative Doug Hoffman with 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens with 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava with 19.7%, and 22% undecided.
Multiple viable political parties have existed in New York State for some time. In addition to the Republican and Democratic parties, there have been the Liberal and Conservative parties, and more recently the Working Families Party which was organized by the now-infamous Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
The Conservative Party was founded in 1962, and eight short years later, James Buckley was elected to the United States Senate running on the Conservative line only, in a three-way race against Republican and Democratic candidates. Popular Buffalo mayor Jimmy Griffin was first elected solely on the Conservative line in 1977, and served for sixteen years.
Many see in the Hoffman candidacy a reprise of the Buckley contest. Outsiders look at party labels, and assume that Hoffman is splitting the Republican vote with Scozzafava, leaving Owens with the Democratic half. But that is not the way New York State works — it divides along conservative-liberal lines. In reality, Owens and Scozzafava are splitting the liberal vote, leaving Hoffman with the conservative half.
The Hoffman candidacy is also noteworthy for attracting the support of tea party patriots throughout the country, giving it national resonance. A Hoffman win would have tremendous implications for grass roots power, especially since both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton have been fundraising for his Democratic opponent and Newt Gingrich has vehemently supported his Republican opponent.
Doug Hoffman has been compared to the Jimmy Stewart character in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. If he wins, for a moment we can all enjoy the feeling of a return to those more honest times.
The candidacy of Dede Scozzafava has divided the GOP between its Reagan conservatives and the party establishment.
Leftist progressive Republicans might not raise the eyebrow of your average Snowe-blind Maineiac, but the thought of adding another DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) statist-minded representative to Washington has GOP conservatives and libertarians apoplectic.
Scozzafava is in a three-way race with Democrat candidate Bill Owens and Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman to fill the seat of departing Republican John McHugh in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.
Scozzafava, who has been lauded by Newt Gingrich, supports abortion, homosexual marriage, Brother O’s stimulus spending, cap-and-trade, and Card Check; and is endorsed by Markos Moulitsas, founder of The Daily Kos; NYSUT (New York State United Teachers), the largest labor union in New York and affiliate of the National Education Association, and ACORN’s (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now’s) Working Families Party.
Right now Democrat Bill Owens is leading Hoffman Scozzafava, but Hoffman’s poll numbers have been steadily rising and have surpassed Scozzafava, which means that Scozzafava is now just a spoiler and could keep Republicans from holding the seat that McHugh routinely won by 2-to-1 margins.
Hoffman is running as the Conservative Party’s candidate because New York’s local GOP establishment entered their “smoke-filled room” and chose Scozzafava behind closed doors, bypassing a primary and the party’s grass-roots voters.
Scozzafava’s leftist politics aren’t the only embarrassment for the Republican Party. She called the police on John McCormack, a Weekly Standard blogger, who questioned her about support for Card Check and then used the propagandist media to smear the journalist.
The call has gone out for Scozzafava to withdraw or be dumped from the race. More than a dozen conservative bloggers and organizations have called for her resignation and for the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) to withdraw their support and put their resources behind the real Republican in the race.
If Hoffman wins the big one, his campaign will become the template for grassroots conservative campaigns nationwide next year. The special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District just might be the spark that ignites an internal revolution to regain the soul of the GOP and bring common sense and sanity back to the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
The leftist elite establishment has blinded the people in this nation through its educational institutions, mainstream media outlets, and the entertainment industry to garner power for a repressive society. While Brother O and his Bread and Circuses Administration zealously dismantle the sleeping middle class, Americans have become unwitting accomplices to a growing underclass.
During education’s ongoing paradigm shift to a postmodern pedagogy in the mid-1980s, a fellow graduate student recognized that tenure and promotion in the academic world depended on the ability to “quack like a duck,” i.e., absorb and regurgitate the academy’s leftist world view and withhold personal opinions. In other words, outspoken conservatives are both persona non grata and underemployed in academia.
The duck motif not only extends to “journalists” in the mainstream media, but as Rush Limbaugh recently discovered, it extends to the National Football League (NFL), a league he greatly admires.
“[T]he NFL … is the most politically correct environment I’ve ever seen in my life,” said Dennis Miller on The O’Reilly Factor. “I don’t even know why Limbaugh would want to be in [it] quite frankly.”
Like many outspoken professors and journalists, Limbaugh now suffers from the pangs of outrageous injustice, being denied his dream for criticizing and mocking the nanny notions of the statist-minded elite. Limbaugh will not be afforded the opportunity that he has earned through achievement to work in the profession he loves for no reason other than his outspoken conservative views are abhorred by the leftist elite establishment.
Since it was leaked that Limbaugh was part of a group intending to buy the St. Louis Rams football team, the propagandists in the mainstream media have worked feverishly to malign his reputation, undermine his creditability, and destroy his character. They overturned rocks for race-baiting poverty pimps and scoured the NFL for nitwit jocks or any feckless team owner they could find to denounce Limbaugh as a bigot and racist before the nation.
The attack and subsequent defamation of Limbaugh adds to the list of media assaults on outspoken conservatives in order to prevent the resurgence of Reagan conservatism from entering the mainstream of American politics and undoing the leftist elites’ socialist agenda. The leftist elite establishment fears the resurgence of a conservatism of individualism, not of country clubs and boardrooms. The establishment dreads the Reagan conservatism championed over talk radio and at town hall meetings and tea parties, which respects the law and reflects the values and traditions of the people.
Statists demagogues live in constant terror of individualists who are independent, loosely connected to groups, and don’t know their place. They commission media propagandists, ready at their beckon call, to seek out and destroy them. The statist diktat is not to refute an opponent’s argument, it is to “wipe him from the face of the earth,” Sarah Palin, Clarence Thomas, and Robert Bork are noted recipients of the left’s scorched-earth and personal destruction politics.
The mainstream media have been frantically trying to deflate Sarah Palin’s ascendancy to the leadership of a national conservative movement since her dazzling acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in September 2008. Had she been a Democrat and espoused the statist ideology of Brother O or Hillary Clinton, Palin’s astounding rise from housewife, to mayor, to governor, to vice presidential candidate would have been praised by propagandists, extolled by environmentalists, lionized by leftists, and fawned over by feminists throughout the nation.
People who use common sense and apply the principles of the Constitution obstruct progressive governance, which explains why the media upended Robert Bork’s nomination and tried to stop Clarence Thomas’ confirmation to the Supreme Court. The media permitted and perpetuated the malicious, baseless allegations of the Democrat smear merchants to damage the reputations and destroy the creditability of both men.
Such reprehensible media campaigns, waged to disgrace both men, “did not resemble an argument so much as a lynching.” Bork was depicted as a judicial tyrant, his wife was falsely accused of being a Holocaust denier, and even his movie viewing habits were called into question. Likewise, Thomas was caricatured as a freakish feel-copping porno pervert in order to humiliate him, strip him of his dignity, and dishonor him for life.
The NFL’s management, owners, and players union along with most of the mainstream media and entertainment industry detest and despise Limbaugh as much as they do Palin, Thomas, and Bork. Yet Limbaugh persists in his love for the National Football League regardless of whether the sentiment is mutual.
Like the pedestaled wife of a fawning cuckold, the NFL graciously accepts Limbaugh’s lavish praises, glowing endorsements, and personal expenditures, yet abhors the very thought of embracing him. When the NFL’s leftist elite establishment denied Limbaugh limited ownership in a football franchise, it denied all outspoken conservatives and sent a subtle message to its owners, coaches, and players to suppress conservative opinion and quack like a duck.
The environment is ripe to don the special sunglasses, face the unadorned reality, and see the hideous leftist potentates and mindless moguls for the despicable fascists they truly are. In the grand scheme of things, the significance of the NFL pales in comparison to that of the USA. The country needs a wake up call, and the time has come for Limbaugh to stop chewing bubble gum and phone it in.
Two MSNBC commentators accuse conservative talk hosts of inciting Americans to assassinate political leaders. The media meme suggests that the Tea Party and Town Hall protesters’ placards and rhetoric likening Brother O to Hitler is an implicit or a coded call to incite violence against him.
The anti-government, anti-Brother O sentiment expressed by some of the white protesters has caused two political propagandists to demonstrate their overt hypocrisy. Jolly old Chris “Tingle” Matthews notified TV and talk radio hosts that they would be held accountable for any violence that happens to Brother O.
In Rachel “Mad Mad Mad” Maddow’s world the right-wing media and the corporate-funded anti-reform movement are invoking political assassination by deliberately and systematically using Hitler as a rhetorical weapon against Brother O and the progressive Democrats in Congress. Mad Maddow says she’s afraid that the right-wingers don’t understand the implications of their actions and is even more afraid that they do.
If MSNBC’s Chris Tingle and the stark raving mad Maddow are really concerned for Brother O’s well being, why didn’t they alert Americans to the dangers of the Nazi slogans, Hitler placards, and vituperative language when members of leftist groups used them to demonize George W. Bush and his administration?
Better yet, how would the two peas account for their anti-Bush rhetoric had a leftist “looneytune” “fruitloop” committed a violent act against Bush? Would political commentators have held them responsible for complicity and for unleashing anti-democratic, anti-American forces in this country?
Paul Williams has pieced together a video montage exposing the blatant hypocrisy of leftists Chris Tingle and mad Maddow. Williams uses the audio portion of a mad Maddow interview, in which she asks Frank Schaeffer whether or not calling Brother O Hitler is an implicit call for politically motivated violence.
Williams overlays the audio portion with video snippets of demonstrations that occurred when George W. Bush was president; the end result is quite revealing.
The hypocrisy of Chris Tingle, mad Maddow, and Frank Schaeffer is rivaled only by Seth Pecksniff, a character Charles Dickens likened to a sign post, “which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there.”
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News analyst, places Sunstein on the far left of the Democrat Party, to the left of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
“We have never had anybody in a regulatory position with this kind of power that is this far to the left of the American people,” says Napolitano. “His potential damage is limitless.”
Sunstein’s nomination had been put on hold in the Senate since late April, but Senator John Cornyn (R–TX) decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and assure the radical’s nomination by lifting the hold.
Cornyn wasn’t the lone Party sell-out. Senate Republicans could have held up the Sunstein nomination but for the seven magnificent RINOs — Susan Collins (R-ME); Olympia Snowe (R-ME); Bob Bennett (R-UT); Orin Hatch (R-UT); Judd Gregg (R-NH); Richard Lugar (R-IN); and George Voinovich (R-OH) — who joined with all but three — Mark Pryor (D-AR); Blanche Lincoln (D-AR); and Jim Webb (D-VA) — of their “enlightened” statist brethren Democrats to invoke cloture and guarantee Sunstein’s nomination before the Democrat controlled Senate.
The Senate is expected to have an up or down vote to rubber-stamp the nomination of the leftist radical tomorrow.
Watch Glenn Beck Clips – Andrew P. Napolitano Interview:
Watch Glenn Beck – Cass Sunstein – The Regulator Czar
Republicans are funny. They are condescending to Sarah Palin, very much a non-mummy, in fact the only Republican who exudes full-blooded life, especially as lived outside a boardroom or a pollster’s module for “taking the people’s pulse.” And now, after the gracious and bumbling Bush family, transplanted from its Eastern seaboard elite origins, virtually destroyed American conservatism, the electorate needing medication from Bush fatigue, they want to trot out yet another Bush for the hoi polloi: Jebby. Florida’s own, just as his brother George was Texas’ own Governor too before jogging into the White House.
And that’s not all. To show how “in touch” they are, the Republicans now want to go on a national “listening tour.” And without first getting a hearing aid. Is it any wonder that in Election 2008 the Obamascam and its media grunts had them for lunch, or as a side dish with Barry’s arugula?
…but today, an obscure MEP is a populist hero. The prominent politicians in Britain didn’t have the guts to call out Gordon Brown on big government and excessive spending. Yesterday in the European Parliament Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England since 1999, made a three-minute speech that struck a chord around the globe. The erstwhile mild-mannered writer and journalist eloquently articulated basic conservative economic principles.
In the last twelve months, a hundred thousand private sector jobs have been lost and yet you created thirty thousand public sector jobs.
Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt….
Everyone knows that Britain is worse off than any other country as we go into these hard times. The IMF [International Monetary Fund] has said so. The European Commission has said so. The markets have said so which is why our currency has devalued by 30% and soon the voters too will get their chance to say so. They can see what the markets have already seen, that you are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued government.
The British mainstream media, as liberally biased as the American MSM, did not cover Hannan’s speech, even though Hannan tipped them in advance. No. Not at all. One could use the term “blackout.” But a clip was posted on YouTube, and, as they say, went viral. Enjoy!
The traditional media used to have a stranglehold on what information we could know and therefore set the range of parameters for what we could decide. That is no longer true, thanks to the Internet, which puts powerful tools for political activism in the hands of ordinary folk. Hannan states this very succinctly on his blog:
The internet has changed politics – changed it utterly and forever. Twenty-four hours ago, I made a three-minute speech in the European Parliament, aimed at Gordon Brown. I tipped off the BBC and some of the newspaper correspondents but, unsurprisingly, they ignored me: I am, after all, simply a backbench MEP.
When I woke up this morning, my phone was clogged with texts, my email inbox with messages. Overnight, the YouTube clip of my remarks had attracted over 36,000 hits. By today, it was the most watched video in Britain.
How did it happen, in the absence of any media coverage? The answer is that political reporters no longer get to decide what’s news. The days when a minister gave briefings to a dozen lobby correspondents, and thereby dictated the next day’s headlines, are over. Now, a thousand bloggers decide for themselves what is interesting….
According to the steady drumbeat from the in-the-tank-for-Obama mainstream media, Barack Obama is way ahead of John McCain in all the polls — state polls, national “eligible to vote” electorate, surveys of those “most likely to vote,” etc. So what do polls really mean, in general, and what do they mean given the particular dynamics of this election, with a black man and a woman in the running?
1. Hang-ups, refusals — When a poll is based on a telephone survey, 80% of the annoyed recipients of these calls, having been interrupted from their dinner starving and tired after a hard day’s work, hang up. (I am one of those who always slam the telephone down.)
If you look at a Gaussian distribution of human personalities, from liberal to conservative in behavior — and I’m talking personality, not political affiliation — the 80% starting from the conservative end of the spectrum are the ones who hang up on surveys. The 20% most liberal are the ones who talk to strangers (including pollsters) over the phone, who discuss their sex life with friends, who wear revealing clothes, who talk about personal finances and how much their possessions cost, who tell everyone how they feel about things, etc. As folk get more conservative, or we might say circumspect, they “hold their cards closer to the chest.” For iconic examples of tell-all personalities, consider the avowedly liberal Hollywood “celebrities.”
There is a political correlation, not one to one, but significant. Those who have conservative mind-their-own-business personalities are much more likely to be conservative politically. So the 80% of voters who do not participate in telephone polls are much more likely to be political conservatives or Republicans, causing the polls to be skewed in favor of liberal candidates.
This same reluctance of more private people extends to in-person exit polls, and was responsible for the now-famous inaccuracies of the Bush-Kerry exit polling:
Interviewing for the 2004 exit polls was the most inaccurate of any in the past five presidential elections as procedural problems compounded by the refusal of large numbers of Republican voters to be surveyed led to inflated estimates of support for John F. Kerry….
[Conservatives are passionate, and will respond to website-based polls, if their personal information is not required to have their vote counted, so those unrestricted counts will show better for conservative candidates than most poll formats. Require name, address, and phone number and you are back to the liberal slant. Conservatives are just more private folk!]
The Bradley effect, less commonly called the Wilder effect, is a proposed explanation for observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some US government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. The effect refers to a supposed tendency on the part of some voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his or her white opponent. It was named for Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections.
The Bradley effect theorizes that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias. Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. The reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well….
No point in calling it the Wilder effect. Douglas Wilder never played the race card. He ran on his distinguished record, was supported by many Republicans while running as a Democrat, won his election, and became a well-liked governor of Virgina, whom many hoped would be the first black man to become US president. He should have run for president, he would have won the US presidency, and race would never have been an issue. Most people would have thought of him as yet one more Virginia governor, like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and Wilson, and not as a black man.
By contrast, Barack Obama has played the race card obnoxiously, with contradictory logic — insisting whites should vote for him despite the fact that he is black, while counting on most blacks to vote for him because he is black. Worse, his campaign has made a strategy of calling those who oppose him “racists.” So, yes, if there really is a “Bradley effect,” we can expect it to be a factor in 2008 presidential race polls.
3. Special interest groups — There are several principle-driven voting blocs in play that the media is absolutely stone-walling.
Democrats who love democracy — Unique to this election are the PUMAs, horrified by the way the legal election process was thwarted in the Democratic primaries by outright intimidation and cheating. Many former Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama. Large numbers will vote the McCain/Palin ticket and many more will vote for Nader or just not vote. Their feelings count, and the mainstream media (MSM) is absolutely and shamefully ignoring them.
Right-to-life voters — Not just right-to-life voters, but most voters who have human compassion, are horrified by Obama’s tacit support of the Illinois practice of infanticide — leaving live birth babies who were intended to be aborted in the hospital soiled laundry room to die. Even those who support a woman’s freedom to choose whether to continue a pregnancy think this goes too far.
Gun rights advocates — Barack Obama is the most anti-gun-rights candidate ever to run for the presidency. Most politically aware gun-owners are aware of the danger he poses to their Second Amendment rights, and will weigh that against their other issue concerns. For the large segment of that population who believe that the right to keep-and-bear-arms is what secures all the other rights, it will be a black and white decision — Nobama.
Special needs families — Advocates for the disabled estimate that 11% of our children, or 4 million, have special needs. That’s 8 million parents. And Sarah Palin speaks directly to that population, and from the heart. It’s not just another campaign issue with her — it’s her life. That issue has never been in play before in a presidential election, but it is now, and in favor of the McCain/Palin ticket. But, again, it is one of those things that the MSM just doesn’t take into account.
Native Americans — All Native Americans born in the United States are eligible to vote. And that population is expected to vote overwhelmingly for John McCain, just on the issues. Add to that the fact that Sarah Palin’s husband is one of their own… Again, no MSM coverage of this voting bloc.
The MSM talking heads believed their own propaganda during the last presidential campaign, right up to the end. We can all remember Dan Rather’s face twisted with surprise, disbelief and agony as he reported the results. He looked like he was about to cry. No reason to get cocky here, but no reason to get discouraged either!
Media Footnote: As a courtesy to our dial-up visitors, our audio and video media are configured to download completely before play is enabled. The control buttons in the media bar will highlight when the selection is ready for playback. Selections must be started manually by clicking the PLAY button.
License: Unless otherwise expressly stated all original material, of whatever nature, created by the American Daughter staff and included in this website, its related pages and archives, is licensed under a Creative Commons License, some rights reserved.
Disclaimer: This is a personal website. The views expressed here are those of the authors and no one else. This is also an experiment in thinking out loud, so there are no warranties as to the reliability or accuracy of anything presented here. Source material -- references, citations, quotes, photos, and other elements -- is gathered from publicly available materials and some of this material may be restricted. Any trademarks used are the property of their respective creators or owners. All are reproduced under the principle of Fair Use.