Radio Interview With Sarah Palin At Baltic S.Dakota Farm Day

Gov. Palin was the guest of Darren and Brian Hefty on their radio program July 25th. Click on the graphic below, scroll down to the “7-25-13 LIVE” entry, and click on it to listen:H/t Youth For Palin/ Josh Painter US for Palin. Click on the July 25th  button that says "LIVE FROM" at the link below

Please Click Graphic to Open in New Tab or Window

Idiot "Gryphen" At Immoral Minority Gets All Confused About Government-Again.

Anonymous9:46 AM

G - You need to change your headline. The good doctor is running for the Senate,not Governor.

Reply

Replies

1. 
   Gryphen9:51 AM

   Oops, thanks.
   
   I see where I got that idea.
   
   Reading comprehension. such a lost art.

The king of the Palin Derangement  one "Gryphen" (exposed by Dan Riehl LINK as a weirdo) pretends to run some sort of a political comment site. It, "Immoral Minority" (no I won't link) really is just a place for the deranged to vent their madness about Sarah Palin. But the 'cover" of it having any resemblance to as genuine commentary site is blown over and over by the utter ignorance of political office in America by the sites editor.

In an "article" actually just a red meat hate piece against Palin, which discussed Palin posing with a candidate for Senator from South Dakota, even the sites "readers' ( I firmly think that given the obviously level of "intelligence" there the pages are read to the correspondents) take Gryphen to task for his lack of knowledge as per the capture above.

This is of course not the first time such utter ignorance is on display-here is "Gryphen" calling House Speaker Boehner "Senator". If Palin displayed such utter ignorance and sloppy "journalism" J.Griffin and his mad followers would indulge in their usual feeding frenzy;

UPDATE:They have changed "Senator" to "He". But, too late-the screen capture doesn't lie!

To show how stupid the Palin Derangement Syndrome and left -wing hate site "Immoral Minority"
 is see if you can guess what is wrong with their latest headline (hint; it is to do with what office Speaker Boehner holds)

And these are the people who pounced on any little speech flub that Palin may have made, and who promoted the insane "Trig Truther, Sarah Palin is not the mother of Trig" fantasies.

As you sow so shall ye reap. Stacy McCain also exposed the person "Gryphen" for his sexual history background which was, as one would expect, from such a person running such a site as IM.

Fair Use Notice

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Copyright issues e-mail to: 
holprof57@yahoo.com

Did "Hispanic's Will Ensure Dem's Permanent Majority" Just Get Overturned Post Zimmerman?

During the months when the Gang of Eight's immigration bill was the subject of heated discussion the "common wisdom" was that whichever way it went-passed or not passed the GOP's doom was sealed because of Hispanic voting trends.

Either the immigration bill would enfranchise multi-millions of Hispanics, from which group of currently enfranchised  members 70% voted for Barack Obama in 2012 or if the bill failed supposedly enraged Hispanics would turn out in even larger numbers to vote for the next Democrat presidential candidates at a a level of Black support-i.e. over 90%.

The just concluded Zimmerman trial may have caused the deck to be reshuffled however.

Whatever ones views on the tragic incident and the trial itself one thing is certain, the racial element has been undeniably present. The left, via CNN/MSNBC and the blogosphere like Daily Kos and of course President Obama himself, have stridently brought race into this case. The Hispanic community has come under extraordinary strident comment and how the not guilty result will play out in ensuing days and weeks is to be seen.

The fact that the NAACP is challenging the verdict is a clear racial stance, should this further incite anti-Hispanic sentiment, or if there is anti-Hispanic violence then the entire premise of Hispanic solidarity with the left  may go out the window. 

This could be crucial in Florida which is an absolute essential state for the GOP and if racial tension between Blacks and Hispanics develops because of the Martin case then it could have a massive effect on the next presidential election. Hispanic voters could also swing Colorado and Nevada and even New Mexico back to the GOP almost certainly guaranteeing victory in 2016 if that eventuates.

In American politics race trumps class solidarity and is still the major factor in voting. The Zimmerman trial could, unexpectedly and "against the run of play" have massive ramifications beyond the local nature of the event itself. 

It brings into question the suitability of someone like Marco Rubio, from Florida, as a presidential candidate as his ethnicity might be now seen as too polarizing whereas, until the Zimmerman case, it was considered an asset.

This pundits who saw the growth of the Hispanic population as the final nail in the GOP's coffin by Texas going blue, with or without legislation on immigration, may have seen their plans and dreams recede into the distance because of an incident in Florida.

here's self-described "real liberal politics" PoliticusUSA:

"George Zimmerman’s Acquittal Attaches A Face To America’s New Racism".


Hispanics may have to decide if the Democratic party, and especially its ultra-leftist supporters, are the party for them.

CNN" Zimmerman free but may be marked man"; If Zimmerman harmed Dem's may kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye

 LINK: http://tiny.cc/vyq8zw

GOP's Immigration Bill Is World's Longest Suicide Note

Quote from National Review (Via TPM)

“If Republicans take the Senate and hold the House in 2014, they will be in a much better position to pass a sensible immigration bill,” they write. “At the presidential level in 2016, it would be better if Republicans won more Hispanic voters than they have in the past — but it’s most important that the party perform better among working-class and younger voters concerned about economic opportunity and upward mobility.”
*******************************************************************************

The 1200   page "Gang of Eight's" and 14 Republican Senators who voted for it immigration bill is, should it pass the House, not only the words longest suicide note in length of words but also in time.

Unless a final bill includes a totally secure border not only will the millions of illegals be voting for the Dem's in 70% ratio in 13 years when all the paths to citizenship have been cleared but they will be joined by who knows how many more who will slip through the unsealed border over that period.

It would be a fool who would bet against a future Democrat president/congress changing the terms of whatever bill goes through to shorten the period of the path to citizenship and the terms required for it.

How the GOP establishment sees any rewards from the current Hispanic population who vote for the Dem's because they acquiesced in a path to citizenship for illegals bill is a mystery. Why would Hispanics 71 % of whom voted for Obama voted for any Republican in a higher ratio. Even if they did it has been shown that the GOP would have need 70% of Hispanic voting support for Romney to have just squeaked by which is of course not going to happen.

If/when millions of  Hispanics who are currently illegals become enfranchised this is what the 2027 Electoral College result could look like. One or more states less would make no difference to the landslide for the Dem's and the utter impossibility of the GOP having a Republican president for generations.

Such a one sided Electoral College result and generation control of the White House is historically the norm.
From 1860 to 1908 the Republicans won eleven presidential election to the Dem's two, and from 1932 to 1948 the Dem's won five straight. With a massive coalition of Hispanics/Black and the White component of the Northern states there would be nothing to stop the Dem's from holding the presidency until some unforeseen event, like a war or 1929 style depression, caused a massive reaction.

Only the GOP House holding firm on the immigration bill in any form, even with a secure border provision, can prevent the party from being rendered utterly without power in the economic and social spheres for generations. The USA would be  a "progressive" country in the social sphere, and who knows how much state control and higher taxation would ensue as well.

The only hope for the Republicans, or rather for the conservative movement, is to stand on total principle. Any immigration bill that legalized illegals is a moral failing. Rewarding law breakers is anathema to conservative morality. Even worse, rewarding law breakers, hurting people who try to immigrate honestly and committing electoral suicide in the process is utter madness.

If the GOP is going to lose  the presidency then why should they not at least go down fighting on and for principles? Let 2016 see a true conservative team running on conservative economic principles, committed to traditional conservative morality in the right to life sphere, and against legalizing and empowering illegals.

Let a Palin or a Cruz or a West or any of them in a team run on that platform and at the very least a stand will have been made, instead of the current pusillanimous attempt to gain votes from a mass of people who will never vote for the GOP in a winning ratio.

Who knows, perhaps the millions of Whites who stayed home in 2012 will vote for such a ticket, and will respond to the call for honor above expediency?  Any other campaign is one of dishonor and could lead to the breakup of the GOP.  This could be the Electoral College result of a campaign of ideas and ideals  and perhaps the last chance  for traditional American values. 

"Undefeatable" Hillary 2016 Run The Perfect Opportunity For Third Party Launch?

At Town Hall, Steve Deace has a "plus and minus" article up;

"Palin’s Provocative Proposal: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Conservatives Leaving the GOP" and quotes Palin:

"In other words, we want government to back off  I think there will be a

lot of us who start saying ‘GOP, if you abandon us, we have nowhere else to go except to become more independent and not enlisted in a one or the other private majority parties that rule in our nation, either a Democrat or a Republican.’ Remember these are private parties, and you know, no one forces us to be enlisted in either party."

Deace leaves the reader to decide whether it is good idea or not for conservatives to leave the GOP and start a new party. I won't do a summary of Deace's thesis it is here I will simply point out that there is no need for such to-ing and fro-ing. The bottom line is that if the Republican establishment forces the House to force an unacceptable immigration bill then, for better or worse, the die will have been cast and the "Freedom Party" is the only option.


If, as no less than Newt Gingrich advised, LINK and with sound reasoning as one would expect, Hillary Clinton is unbeatable by any GOP candidate in 2016, then that year would be the perfect opportunity to launch a genuine conservative party.

Sarah Palin intimated that such a party might eventuate, she even agreed that "Freedom Party" would be an excellent name for such a vehicle,  should the Republican establishment go against the wishes of the rank and file. 

It is fair to surmise that Palin was specifically referring to the upcoming vote in the House on the immigration bill that the "Gang of Eight" produced (and 14 Republicans supported) in the Senate, but of course a whole myriad of conservative concerns would also be behind the creation of a new party.

This is not to necessarily agree with Gingrich's doomsday scenario. I have written at the American Thinker LINK that in my opinion a ticket which had both Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin together (or Bush andCruz) in 2016 would have a very strong possibility of winning-even if Hillary was the Dem's nominee. But if that were not the ticket, and as current polling concurs, the GOP faces a seemingly impossible demographic/Electoral College hurdle.

If the Republican Establishment conjures up another ticket in the Dole/McCain/Romney line then millions of conservatives, as they did in 2012, will stay home-what possible incentive would they have to vote for yet another centrist Democrat lite-especially the Perot-ite working class conservatives?

If the Republicans force through an immigration bill unacceptable to the Palin-ite conservatives, and a Christie or Rubio or Bush, sans Palin, is seen to be the "electable" inevitable nominee, then the losing dice would be cast. 

If that were the case then, and especially if the polls backed it up, the argument by the GOP against "vote splitting third party wreckers" causing the Republicans to lose, would be out the window.

A genuinely conservative third party movement could grasp what might be an historic opportunity. To run when there was no hope for the regular Republicans, would take away the stigma/turncoat argument whilst setting the framework for full realignment in 2020.

If both the Republicans and the third party lost, as would be expected (although it might actually be possible for the third party to win under special circumstances as I set out previously (LINK) then in 2020 whichever of the two had done best in 2016, and was still the dominant force, would have the right to claim to be the true conservative vehicle. 

At that point if Clinton was running for a second term and the economy was in bad shape the new party, should it be the dominant force, would being the position of bringing the first genuinely conservative government since Reagan.

It may be that in the relatively near future that which is most feared, a Clinton victory, might (especially if such a victory was ameliorated by a Republican Congress) be the best thing for the conservatives, and lead to the foundation of a new party in the fastest time with the least spilling of political blood on the right.

Ask Not For Whom The Jeb Bush Bell Tolls;It Tolls for Thee (Under Certain Circumstances)

My American Thinker article "Bush-Palin 2016; Historic Compromise" Which I reproduced with an "Update From Real Clear Politics Confirming Concept" has yet further confirmation of the basic premise, to whit;

Do conservatives want to defeat Hillary in 2016 at all costs? 

In my opinion 2016 will be the last chance for the "progressive" tide to be rolled back, especially as regards the Supreme Court, in the social sphere and the economic. 

The question that follows is "is Jeb Bush, if emotion about his name is removed, a true social conservative and in the right place as far as amnesty is concerned?

My article received 365 comments of which 363 were anti-Jeb Bush with only two brave souls seeing the reasoning behind the possibility of a Bush/Palin (or Cruz) ticket. I won't rehash all the points as regards the proposed ticket (in either order of president/VP) it is all at the link above but will add further to the ongoing discussion about the direction of the GOP and Jeb Bush.

Over at Hot Air Allapundit has an article up "Scott Walker Supports Path To Citizenship For Illegals" about which the first readers comment is "now he's toast here." Subsequent comments excoriate Walker as "another Rubio." But one interesting comment is this; "Steve Eggleston; Second look at Jeb? 


At this point in time the only leading candidates for 2016 for conservatives who are against blanket amnesty are solidly pro-life and fiscally conservative are Palin, Cruz and;

"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Monday he does not support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., a central provision of immigration reform plans being considered by Congress."

Bush has since amended his thoughts in an article in the WSJ on the senate's immigration bill where he now states inter-alia:

"(it)addresses most of the flaws of the current system. It reduces family preferences, increases the number of high-skilled visas, expands guest-worker programs, and creates a merit-based immigration system for people who want to pursue the American dream. It also offers a path to citizenship for those who were brought here illegally as children, and dramatically increases resources and tools for border security.

The bill also invites people who came here illegally to come out of the shadows through a provisional resident status. It does not provide an amnesty, that is, a pardon. The Senate bill creates a 13-year probation during which those who came illegally must pay a series of fines and back taxes, undergo background checks, are ineligible for most social services, and must work continuously."

In Texas polling PPP Polling finds Jeb Bush in second place amongst Republicans for the 2016 nomination. Bush is only behind Ted Cruz which is a remarkable result given Cruz's huge popularity amongst conservatives in his home state and Palin's strong backing. If Cruz and Palin do not run then on current polling Bush would win easily. Rubio is way back in the field on only 6%.

The poll finds Bush ahead of Hillary Clinton as well. Although the margin is relatively small 46% to 43% the result is also remarkable given Clinton's huge lead over other Republican possibles in many red states that were polled recently. 

I come back to my central point; if Palin and Cruz do not run for president in 2016 and the choice is Jeb or Hillary i.e. between locked in "progressivism' or social and economic conservatism, then Jeb Bush is a sensible choice, (and probably the only Republican who could carry Florida without which no Republican stands a chance) especially if he runs with a true conservative-ideally Palin or Cruz.

 Republicans who would stay home in protest at such a ticket "because a Bush" in 2016 would be cutting of their noses to spite their faces and would  have eight years of Hillary to enjoy for their purity. 

Bush needs to clarify whether the border provisions in the senate's bill are acceptable without further amendment to what Palin calls for i.e. a fully sealed border. His advice that the bill "dramatically increases resources and tools for border security." is not acceptable to conservatives as per this post at Conservatives4Palin

Further, here is Palin's views on the issue from her Breitbart editorial:
"Look no further than the fact that Senator Rubio and amnesty supporters nixed Senator Thune’s amendment that required the feds to finally build part of a needed security fence before moving forward on the status of illegal immigrants who’ve already broken the law to be here."

FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
§ 107. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Copyright issues e-mail to: 
holprof57@yahoo.com