Sunday, May 31, 2015

Palin Site News Translated From Spanish Edition 05/31/15 GOP Primary Review

WAITER, two beers!

PrimariasGOPThey would have to be four beers, but finally have fallen in two. Of the four potential candidates for the Republican primary was said that this week would take the final step, only two have met Rick Santorum and George Pataki (no, it has nothing to do with our Elsa, I think). Of the other two, Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry, yet nothing is known. There are also rumors that John Kasich is having problems when combine his campaign or to obtain sufficient funds to embark on the adventure andit will wait until the end of June to make his candidacy official. About the latter case, it seems to me that this is a polite way of saying that will not present because starting in late June will not have enough time to score in the polls of voting intentions to participate in the first televised debate of August 6. And as for the second, that of September, starting from such a position of disadvantage, will head the group of figureheads, discards.
Anyway, the fact is that we have eight candidates in contention and our "Thermometer GRGP" begins to heat up. As you can see, I've located Santorum in a decent position and Pataki in an indecent position; certainly this is only my personal opinion and may change over time, but now I think it reflects very well located where each of the candidates announced politically.
Santorum announced his candidacy last Wednesday night and, to begin with, was enacted as the candidate of the American manual workers. His keynote address focused almost entirely on the challenges that these workers are now finding in these times of uncontrolled immigration and freehold interests of large companies when it comes to legislating in Washington. It is a change from what was expected of Santorum, who has always been seen as the most likely to seek and receive the votes of the religious right candidate, but this year decided to give a twist to their image and reinvent itself as the "union" candidate, if I may say so. The downside is that it forces you to side with hardly acceptable by conservative positions, such as raising the minimum wage. Anyway, I guess trust carve out a niche for itself in the first months and then if Huckabee is the paste (which the stick), running to take their place in the little heart of the religious right voters. Moreover, his presentation speech was correct enough so that you can be considered a cool curator of Paraguay, supporting the US military and its veterans, promising to give up the ass to ISIS, siding with Israel, lowering taxes by repealing Obamacare and everything else.Santorum also endeavored to remember that in 2012 won the primaries in 11 states and received 4 million votes, but that I see misleading because in 2012 what happened is that with the continuous series of setbacks harvested by more favored candidates he (eg, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich), he was the only one left who enough differed Mitt Romney to serve as an alternative to it. Santorum was the lesser evil of that year, not the favorite, and in 2016, with such a range of candidates, bad is going to have to repeat his feat (failed, of course) of 2012. The truth is I have not seen Santorum with chances of reaching South Carolina, but it is certainly at least one conservative candidate with whom I sympathize, but nothing more. I'm Ted and nobody else.
As for Pataki, for he is a former governor of New York, a position he held for three consecutive terms. In fact, he was the governor during the 11-S and its performance in those days was successful and effective, but all of the time is the eventually led President George Bush and the mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Although now go conservative, Pataki is a moderate Republican, it has always been a moderate Republican and if elected president, would be a moderate Republican president; that is, nearly Democrat (one Nelson Rockefeller of the century, come on). However, this year what you get is the conservatism ("Now we'll all be conservative," I would say that), Pataki made ​​his keynote speech elaborating on these issues, opposing Obamacare , shitting on illegal immigration, promising less public and less to government spending. Nothing new; It's the same thing they do every RINO when they kick off their election campaigns promise what they know that their constituents want, only to forget all about it as soon as they deposit their pompous asses in the desired chair. Pataki is the guy who's saying he wants to unite the Republican Party and lead it to victory in 2016, which is exactly what RINO say all those who claim that the Republican Party to win, we must be democratic and be nonsense, which Reagan is quite dead and nobody remembers him. Ja, because I aviado it is! Pataki, the best thing I can imagine is that with the delay by the Republican establishment to decide who will be their candidate, he has decided to be offered in the hope that it is true that the popular wisdom that says who gives first, It gives twice. I not think it works because as soon as Jeb Bush jump into the fray, Pataki two candles, unable to convince conservatives that he is one of theirs and unnecessary stay for the establishment , already have their candidate . Of course, Bush is taking too long, the outlook is not very encouraging for a liberal Republican in these times of hard-nosed conservative thought and Pataki will focus all fire on Bush, maybe that ends inhabilitándole (apart from that there are too many rumors about Bush really does not occur and that makes it almost by obligation) and then he himself could stand as the perfect replacement: neither too conservative nor too liberal. It is a miscalculation, but we'll see what comes of it. If Bush is finally presented, I sincerely believe that Pataki did not even come to Iowa.
Otherwise, I have some news about Ted Cruz (nor is it half an hour talking about two guys who do not care about a damn thing about Ted and I did not mention it). The first is that you have composed a song, ha ha ha. Yes really! But it is not what you are thinking; no beautiful singer country has declared love with him. This is a group of hip-hop Christian (yes, there is that, to my series on best songs I refer conservative) called We Are Watchmen has released a song in support of Ted and his presidential candidacy. "Set It On Fire" is the title and this is his song and the original and the translation of the letter:
It's like we're back in the late seventies, a task force is dead, emboldened enemies;
Can you hear the voice of Reagan saying the Fed is not the remedy?
The banner's in the air for the conservative ascendency.
America, These are perilous times ...
Our pedigree is heredity and liberty intrepidly;
Individuals and family morality is the recipe;
The more we stray from That the more we waver from our legacy;
DC Make listen, switch off the dead news.
The lame stream media feeding us the fed stew;
The true solution is
Return to the roots of our Constitution.
Remove this monster boot off the neck of our sovereign Union;
Select Cross and Let's Get Through This, the movement;
Reignite the promise.
If you're conservative, Then prove it.

It's like we're back in the late seventies; the workforce is dead, his emboldened enemies;
Can you hear the voice of Reagan saying the [federal] government is not the remedy ?;
The conservative ascendancy is in question;
United States, these are dangerous times ...;
Our heritage and our pedigree is freedom without fear;
Personal and family morality is the recipe;
The more we move away from it, the more we give up our heritage;
Make hear the capital, news dying off;
Biased media communication of government feed us stew;
The real solution is;
Back to the roots of our Constitution;
Take away this monstrous boot from the neck of our sovereign union;
Choose Cruz and we all move together;
Rekindles the promise;
If you are conservative, prove it.
On its website, We Are Watchmen a group that uses music with a message to mobilize American Christians in fulfilling their civic duties (eg voting in elections) are declared. So, they say like in many churches in Germany sang louder on Sunday morning to drown out the screams of prisoners Jews in wagons on the way to the concentration camps, most banks pulpits and US churches They have been too prone to ignore the rampant evil is taking over this great Christian nation it once was. Because, they say, less than 25% of American Christians vote.
Interesting, is not it? The first clear sign that I see that the US Christian right is beginning to adopt Cruz as its candidate. Poor Huckabee, to be left without a vote that carried the wallet! And ready Santorum, who has seen it that way there's nothing to do! Attentive, friends, this has only made to start.
Also new on Ted Cruz I have is that it seems that Rand Paul has begun to identify as its main rival, which says a lot about Paul fears that many libertarians may prefer to cross before himself. All this comes following a scuffle between the two that took place a few days ago. The fact is that the two have divergent positions on foreign policy, something we already knew too well, and when Paul led the opposition to the Freedom Act, a law that replaced the Patriot Act, but including restrictions on the ability of the NSA to collect massive recordings of phone calls, Cruz disagreed with him. Paul voted no, Cruz voted yes and Paul took it quite badly. Cruz then declared that he is a good friend of Paul, who always have been, but I disagree with him on issues of foreign affairs because he believes that American leadership in the world is essential. Certainly believes that the US should not deploy military force without rhyme or reason, but even so, there are limits and as Reagan said, the United States has a vital role to play. Paul replied that he disliked that Cruz "misrepresent" their positions and despite having always been good friends, that suited him very badly and was not edispuesto to pass up. Result: a PAC super linked to Rand Paul, America's Liberty Super PAC, has issued an election notice for Paul in which it is presented to Cruz as a "Canadian" against the background of a flag of Canada has capitulated and supports the President Obama, while Paul is reflected as a macho (shirtless, in the style of Putin) fighting alone against all.
My opinion? Cruz is beginning to take shape as the great "dining room" of the votes of all other candidates and those candidates have begun to realize. Cruz presenting himself as the candidate of the Tea Party, that, first, lets you easily reach the more than 60% of Republican voters in the primaries of 2012 Tea Party supporters declared. In addition, defining its position in favor of social and fiscal conservatism, it lends a special charm between religious and non-religious voters, but very concerned about their pocket (which is everyone). For his part, Paul is surprising to me because it had a little to spoil his libertarian discourse and tended more towards the traditional conservatism, but it is not the case and that I consider a mistake: only 12% of Republican voters are declared libertarian and Still, in these times of direct threat from Islam, many of them prefer to park the issue of "splendid isolation" of the United States for greater security. Paul can not claim to be a carbon copy of his father, Ron, because if you do, it will be with all of the law and their application will end before South Carolina. Play libertarian letter was good in 2010, but in 2016 is political suicide. Anyway, he'll know it's a big boy. For my part, I am very glad to see that Ted is doing as well as for all to fear. That confirms me in my view that he is our man.
Ted Live!

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Commentary On Gov.Palin's Comments Re: O'Malley's Candidature+ Is A Palin-ite 3rd party Viable In 2016

Governor Palin on Facebook 05/30/15
"Yet another anti-freedom politician jumps in the race today for POTUS. As cool as he is with his rock ‘n roll persona, this typical liberal’s erroneous grasp of our Bill of Rights merely continues the strange and disastrous agenda of Barack Obama. Good to know he doesn’t have much chance of winning. The democrats have greased the skids for their chosen one, despite the media games that play the public with various "competing" campaigns used for gamey distractions.
With today’s more-of-the-same distract-sphere – with the politician sounding exactly like all the others – don’t you wonder if there are ANY good old fashioned Blue Dog democrats who can represent the left’s party in the 2016 race? I feel kind of bad for democrats who are as embarrassed about their party leaving them as some of us Republicans are about our own party when we hear the GOP talk a good game but dishonorably capitulate when given the majority power to stop Obama’s nonsense.
By now, most of those ol’ Reagan democrats have come to realize that it was the party of Lincoln and Reagan all these years fighting for and winning the abolishment of slavery, civil rights for all Americans, equal rights for women, free markets, individual liberty, constitutional protections, private sector job growth, and a sensible foreign policy rooted in peace through strength. For those who still identify as democrats, it’s quite easy to bid a deceptive party an overdue farewell. Just tell me what state you’re a resident of, and I’ll post links to your voter registration office. Click on it. There you can finally bust free of a party that’s long since abandoned you. I recommend then registering "independent," or the equivalent of, in your state. Your newfound sweet freedom will empower you!
Here’s just one reason to do it: abolishing your name from the liberal’s roll chips away at the democrat party’s foundation that actually supports un-American acts like this:
This report ran in an old news cycle, but it remains relevant until a constitutional conservative leads our exceptional nation; for as long as the far left retains power via their numbers, the extent that they are willing to go to trample our Bill of Rights only grows."
These are, I believe, insightful comments (from C4P) on Governor Palin's post:


Now here is the climax to her post."
"Until a constitutional conservative leads our exceptional nation; for as long as the far left retains power via their numbers, the extent that they are willing to go to trample our Bill of Rights only grows."
Name one candidate in your opinion that fills the bill as a true tested Constitutional Conservative, other then Sarah Palin.

I noticed in her Facebook post that Governor Palin encouraged traditional and Reagan Democrats to leave the party, but to register as independent rather than join the GOP. Hmm... Could this be a hint as to her future plans?
I remember Mark Levin talking about being an inch away from leaving the GOP.
Considering recent events, isn't it time he walked over that last inch? It would be quite a firestorm if Sarah Palin and Levin both left the GOP at the same time. Right now the GOP is in such bad shape a move like that might be a good thing, especially if 2016 ends up Hillary vs. Jeb. After all, at that point, what difference would it make?
After reading Sarah Palin's post...I believe it's looking likely if she does enter...she'll enter the race as an Independent. In my mind's eye I zeroed in on Sarah Palin's use of the word "Independent" and I'm reading the tea leaves with that wording. If Sarah Palin enters the race...I doubt she'll run as a Republican. She's pretty much calling them out...although I suspect she could be hitting them a lot harder. Notice she didn't say anything about the TPP bill and the people who supported it...including the ones she endorsed to Congress.
Her silence on this matter suggests she's trying to figure out how to navigate that minefield given people like Sen Ted Cruz actually voted for it. It's going to be interesting to see if Sarah Palin acknowledges the Guardian's investigation into the "votes" that were bought for the bill's passage and mentioning the tally of those running for re-election in 2016 getting all that money for their "yes" votes. That's classic "crony capitalism" as defined by Sarah Palin herself as she described it in her speech in...(Iowa!) of all possible places.
Now, if Sarah Palin does run but as an Independent...she'll destroy the Republican party. They will howl in rage at "irrelevant" little Sarah Palin who dares to kick sand into their faces and ruin their party. (Just imagine Dana Perino's face on the Five if this happens!) I believe if Sarah Palin decides not to run...I think her game plan is to let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot once again and let the air out of the Hindenberg and start over by 2020. If she takes this route...that's an awfully long calculated gamble in my opinion.
Sarah Palin: " Yet another anti-freedom politician jumps in the race today for POTUS". You've no doubt read the rest of her message. 
That she is commenting on the overall poor quality of POTUS wannabees in both parties raises a serious question, one that every campaign, every political party, every politician and every voter, plus the talking heads in media are dying to know, "Sarah, what are YOU going to do about it?" 
By now Mrs. Palin, you have noticed that while the GOP does indeed have a deep bench, they are all backbenchers, third stringers, and NOT ready for prime time. Can you seriously endorse another repub whose odds of winning are poor at best?
America NEEDS a PATRIOT PRESIDENT at the helm, not another repub who is willing to trade OUR freedoms and liberties for the empty promise of 'safety'. I am not willing to trade any of the rights granted to me by the founding documents Mrs. Palin and you are the ONLY candidate or potential candidate who has not said that WE must trade liberty for safety.
So Mrs Palin, I join the tens of millions of people who want to know, are you ready yet to lead this nation as the 45th President of the United States?
    If Palin did run as an Independent is it all possible that there would be an electoral College path to victory in 2016? I explored this in an earlier post:

    (Palin-ite) Third Party 2016: Viable Reality Or Pipe Dream?

    Also at Bob Belvedere's 'The Camp Of The Saints'  LINK

    Third Party 2016: Viable Reality Or Pipe Dream?

    15 JANUARY 2015 @ 20:02

    The 2014 mid-terms landslide with its Boehner re-election aftermath, had a similar expression of Tea Party/conservative disgust as did the 2012 landslide. Now, as then, voices have been raised calling for a conservative third party.
    Leaving aside persons and personalities, if the question of the viability of a third party is to be considered outside of the emotion of the moment, disgust with this or that possible Establishment candidate, then the Electoral College and constitutional issues need to be examined.
    Even with massive enthusiasm and huge grass roots funding behind such a movement, history shows that victory first time up would be unlikely (although a major economic dislocation could prove an exceptional catalyst). Teddy Roosevelt crushed the Republican establishment in 1912, but lost heavily to the Dem’s, La Follette had substantial enthusiasm at 19.24% of the popular vote but did poorly in the Electoral College, as did Perot 18.9% and George Wallace13.5%.
    In 1856, the new Republican Party lost in their first outing, whilst performing credibly and, after the next election, became the major force in presidential politics for the next 56 years. Thus the Whigs, who displaced the Federalists, and the Republicans who replaced the Whigs, prove that a new party can, if there is a major social shift, not only do well but can become a dominant force.
    Below are illustrations of how a new party could eclipse the GOP as it now stands and win in 2016, although 2020 in a straight two party race would seem more likely. The major question would be whether, if the new party did well but did not win, it could stay around for another run-unlike Roosevelt’s Progressive Party.Thus those who might consider a new party would have to also consider the massive commitment it would require.
    The question is, would a third party run give it a realistic chance of winning the presidency in 2016?
    The answer is, yes if the environment is right. If by November 2016 the economy is not better than now, or has turned down massively, and if Romney or Jeb Bush were the GOP’s candidate which caused  conservatives to bolt, then a three way vote split is quite possible.
    This approximates the three party (Dem/Bull Moose/GOP) 1912 election. That election was prevented from being thrown into the House because sitting President Taft only carried two states, but split the vote with Roosevelt 23% to 27% denying Roosevelt enough electoral votes to stop Wilson having an outright win.
    Whereas the scenario below, realistically for the situation over 100 years later, shows the GOP candidate winning enough electoral votes to ensure no candidate had a majority.
    It would require a genuine conservative, like Palin, who is the only person with enough name recognition, support base and fundraising ability to have any chance, to head a mass movement third party run. Concomitantly, if there was a major economic downturn, and a split in the left was exacerbated to the point that the “Progressives” stayed home on election day, and the Tea Party turned out en-mass, then the map below (with the prospective third party states in beige) is a very plausible result.
    In this scenario the Democratic candidate would not have the 270 electoral college votes needed for outright victory. Under the constitution, the GOP standard bearer, the Dem, and the third party candidate would be the candidates the House would decide from. (presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes. If they did they would be eliminated from the balloting as only the top three go through for consideration)
    Every state would have one vote based  on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York’s one vote would go to the Dem, and Wyoming’s one vote would go to the new Conservative Party, or to the Republican. Given the Republican, in this scenario, would have no chance of winning, it would be presumed that the votes of the states that Republican had won would go to the Conservative. This, if after the first ballot, no candidate had a majority of states votes, and if the conservative was the second choice of general election voters as per the map below.
    Given it would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House and the state caucus delegations, thus, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting.
    This scenario played out before. In the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson finished first with more electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, William Crawford came third and Henry Clay fourth. With Clay eliminated he threw the support of his states to Adams, who was duly elected, based on the fact of his having the majority of states.
    Interestingly the combined Adams/Clay popular vote was 43.9% to Jackson’s 41.3% so in effect electoral justice was done. Similarly in the map below the combined non-Dem electoral vote is 274-four above the minimum of 270, and thus electoral justice would also have been done 187 years later
    The full constitutional scenario is set out below the map.”Undecided” means third party  and the map represents a 2016 scenario disregarding Obama as the Democratic candidate. In the ensuing map from 1912 it clearly shows how a sitting president can only carry two states as did Taft so the scenario is entirely plausible.
    Wilson received 41.7% of the vote and 435 Electoral College votes/Roosevelt 27.4 and 88/Taft 23.2% and 8. Thus Roosevelt/Taft had a popular vote majority (The Socialist Debs received 6%)
    The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:
    “The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”
    Thus, if the no candidate with an electoral college majority scenario plays out, and presuming there are no other candidates who have won electoral votes, the House would meet to choose the next president by January 20th 2017, with the states having one vote each, whilst the Senate would meet to choose the Vice-President.
    Based on the current composition of the House, and if voting went strictly on party lines, with no vote switching or abstentions in states with a close proportion of Republicans and Democrats, the Independent (or third party) candidate would be chosen on the first or second ballot.
    The Electoral College map is of course set out for illustrative purposes only. Given a political, social and economic environment in such a state of flux that a major third party effort had arisen there is no way of knowing, at this point in time, how any particular state might go on election day. The point is however, that there is a scenario where none of the three candidates had an Electoral College majority and thus a new, third party candidate could win-if not in 2016 then in 2020 — once the movement had bedded down and the GOP had gone the way of the Whigs.
    Clearly, all the possible ducks would have to be in a row, a major personality such as Governor Palin would have to lead the new party and, as always money would be the determinate of how far along such a movement could go. Even a Perot or a Bloomberg or a Trump with all their personal wealth in such an undertaking, could only get so far and the fundraising, without corporate or Establishment support would have to be unprecedented from the grass roots. However if the economic and political winds had shifted enough and corporate America saw the GOP had no chance, and perhaps some of the newly wealthy entrepreneur class were interested the finance might become available at that point.
    The only guarantee that can be confidently stated is that if a major third party did get underway the windmill it tilted at, without the finance required, would be the GOP’s whose 2016 candidate would be doomed.Whether that is a bad result would be a matter for ones personal predilections, if it brought an internal Reaganite revolution for 2020 perhaps the third party concept might not prove to be quite so quixotic in the end.

    Friday, May 29, 2015

    "Tea Party Command Center" presents Positive View For Governor Palin

    Sarah Palin, Will She Run For President?
    Sarah Palin, a very strong Conservative, may decide to run, she has a very strong following. There is only one Sarah and the libs are scared to death of her, sort of like they were of President Reagan, I remember all the b. s. they were mouthing. They know she is formidable, she can raise a half dead audience to their feet cheering.
    ."Sarah Palin, Will She Run For President?
    Sarah Palin, a very strong Conservative, may decide to run, she has a very strong following. There is only one Sarah and the libs are scared to death of her, sort of like they were of President Reagan, I remember all the b. s. they were mouthing. They know she is formidable, she can raise a half dead audience to their feet cheering.
    She said a candidate like Hillary is no obstacle at all.
    I know she would bring this country back from the abyss BHO and company has taken us to, bring back our military strength and regain our once held respect in the world, she would renew our relationship with our allies and be formidable to our enemies, we would return to the Constitution and the Rule of law, as set by our Founders, the countless executive orders would be examined for elimination and that damnable Obamacare would see the kiss of dearth…
    Now there is a woman. She has the qualities of a Margaret Thatcher. The question is will she throw her hat in the ring, I hope she will in spite of foul mouthed addlebrained liberals who know she is capable of sweeping the floor with them, like an iron lady"

    Sunday, May 24, 2015

    Palin News Translated From Spanish;Piper's Graduation/Memorial Day Etc


    EverywhereAt least in Alaska, heh, heh, heh. Here, children still have a month of classes, but there in the far north, have been completed and are very happy. Ah, what memories! What I liked also the end of the course!Well, the Palin children, there are still two that have to be seen in that attitude: Piper and Trig. Of the two, Trig is that it has easier (relatively) because theirs is the nursery and has not yet started primary school. Piper, meanwhile, has finished the middle school and is about to enter high school ,they are the last years of secondary education. Both seem to be applied and students who have taken the course so I'm sure they will spend a great summer, as they deserve.
    This is the note of Sarah realizing the happy event:
    Celebrating the last day of class! What a great day! New chapters of life, always open.
    Piper, Piper, Piper! Really wears pink hair?
    This is Sarah's niece, McKinley; I think it is the same age as Piper.
    See if you guess what the question that made me more times in recent months. I give you three options: A) Bob, handsome, take me to dinner on Saturday night ?; B) Bob, handsome, will you marry me ?; and C) Bob, gorgeous, Sarah will be presented to the primary or not? Yes, I know it is very difficult, but I'm sure you will have no doubt that the correct answer is B ... say the C! (Which I would like to be the B, buaaaa!). For my part, my answer is always the same: No, gorgeous, will not be present. The result: without dinner, and a wedding without reading spoilers least, sniff, sniff.
    To confirm that it will certainly not present, I leave here a fragment of an interview with him recently where he was asked his opinion on all those Republicans who have already made official his candidacy. Here is the video and the translation of his words:
    INTERVIEWER : I know it's a long way, but I have to ask you. There are plenty of people who have already put their name on the presidential race. Does anyone make you ding right now?
    SARAH PALIN : Well, I'm very grateful to the enlightened conservatives who love love our Constitution and our military. That the bench is so broad, I'm grateful for that. Do not be surprised if you still see a few names more ... on the side of constitutional conservatives, making the leap and offering themselves in service name.
    I think each one so far, in addition to those who come, will be able to give Hillary a tough job. Because now more than ever is the time to do this not for ourselves, but for the country. Be willing to serve, to sacrifice, to do everything possible to pull ahead.Make every effort to defend our freedom. And defend, promote, uphold the Constitution. There will be a handful of people that fit that project.
    INTERVIEWER : And what about you?
    SARAH PALIN : Well, we'll see what happens ... Todd? [Sarah looks at Todd] ... the next year or so. We'll see. So far I am happy that there are those who are willing to step forward because, well, it's a big commitment, do not you, Todd? [Sarah looks back to Todd], with family, with time, with the resources. So, we are grateful that so far there are some good people out there.
    My own personal interpretation. Sarah is increasingly good talking Politiques that of Amando de Miguel, heh, heh, heh. Next year is not the time to launch a bid. If you have any intention of doing such a thing, it is beginning to be this time. At best, it could wait until early September. As much, until early October. But I have no evidence that Sarah has given the slightest step in that direction; I remember pending review their accounts SarahPAC the second quarter. I have already told you a hundred vecees and I'll repeat: an election campaign in the United States is not about a handful of friends and home printer for posters. It involves a lot of organization, much qualified and an awful lot of money available at the time and throughout the election campaign. Precisely the stage where the other candidates have already declared, creating a reliable infrastructure, ensuring public and private support and accumulating money. One does not get up on 1 October and decided to announce his candidacy and put an ad in the newspaper asking pollsters, strategists and organizers. This is done much earlier and Sarah is certainly not for the work. No, Sarah will not be present. Besides, what she could bring to the campaign that does not provide as Ted Cruz? No, Sarah will have a role later, do not know if as a candidate for vice president or as a member of the cabinet, but in regard to his candidacy, they dismiss that idea.
    Yes, I know I'm a killjoy too, but if there is one thing I have learned after many years following Sarah everywhere is that it need not be the center of attention to be happy and it's true when you say that she is so happy taking care of home and family. Sarah has no trauma had not been elected vice president in 2008; He regrets the missed opportunity, but not for herself but for what it has been assumed the presidency of Obama for America and the world. But she also pirra by fuck the red, did not publicly rule out his candidacy only to have worried. And that will be until finally take sides for a candidate, I hope that is Ted Cruz.
    A photo of Sarah referred to Memorial Day , Remembrance Day:
    Memorial Day
    Remembrance Day. Just in case you thought I was the National Day barbecue.
    And a note of support in relation to this very day:
    Here's a worthwhile cause to contribute to cost nothing except your energy! This effort encourages runners and walkers to wear something blue and devote the kilometers you scroll through Memorial Day to the best of the United States who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. The "Blue Dress, Run to Remember" event was initiated by the widow of a fallen as a way to pay tribute to her husband and all our fallen, our military on active duty soldier heroes and their families. God bless you for your sacrifices! Please visit the event website to see how you can be part of it:
    And finally, one of his video of Sarah Palin Channel. Just a question that I really wanted to try: the Second Amendment. What would that be legalized in Spain gun ownership?Because criminals would have it very black and decent citizens would have the chance to finally sleep peacefully. Because, when a criminal has exhausted its weapons only because there is legal possession?
    "Weapon-free" is not the same as "crime-free"
    Do liberals believe that threats to personal safety simply disappear once a student enters a college campus? Take into account these "gun-free" zones. An area "free of weapons" is not a "crime-free" zone. In fact, an area "free of weapons" is an invitation to crime. And that puts many women at risk as assaults on young women on college campuses appear to be increasing.
    Let me you put a face to this tragedy. There is a young college student in Reno (Nevada). Her name is Amanda Collins. She had a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon, but was not allowed to carry on campus. Well, Amanda was raped by a man with a gun illegally on campus.
    A violators do not mind violating restrictions on gun-free zones. They ignore those signals. Amanda was less than ten meters from the campus police station when the attacker approached him. This guy put a gun to his head. He pulled the pin and said he would kill her if she screamed. The man raped other women more. The man killed his third victim.
    Tell me, contrary to the Second Amendment people. Why you left Amanda and those other defenseless women?
    Finally, a story about the Republican primary. As I just learned, the first televised debate will take place on August 6 in Cleveland. It will be on Fox News and it can only be accessed by candidates who formalized his candidacy and that are in the top ten in half of the five most recently published surveys of national opinion. If there were a tie, the presence of more than ten would be allowed, but the intention of Fox News to limit the number to ten.
    There are also rumors that given the huge number of candidates who can present two types of discussions could be held, one "first" with the best placed candidates; and a "second" with the rest. This seems to be the prevailing idea on CNN, which plans another debate in September.
    Apparently, there will be a total of 12 televised debates between August 2015 and March 2016, which is a lot, but also serve to hold off the more quickly and leave behind so the primary start in January 2016 with a staff of Affordable minimally candidates: over six would be a problem so much to disperse the vote.
    Anyway, I am complaining about how quiet they are the months when there is so little about what to report. Ha ha ha, wait until September comes and see how I miss the wheels so much I get to work! If I am well; if I grunted something, I am not happy.