It's the beginning of the beginning for another GOP primary.  And if you're an informed conservative, you probably had the prescience to predict its rollout back during the primary season of the 2014 midterm elections.

The primary that tipped us off to it was for the U.S. Senate race in Mississippi. 

The challenger to Republican incumbent Thad Cochran was the young, handsome, energetic Chris McDaniel.  He captured the heart of the conservative base in the state.  The Cochran team picked up on it, and after McDaniel forced the Senate fossil into a runoff, the GOP establishment came out swinging.  They teamed up with Democrats to portray Chris McDaniel as a racist who wanted anyone who wasn't white or rich to be exterminated.  As such, they used Mississippi's arguably nonsensical open-primary law to encourage Democrats all across the state to vote for Cochran in a Republican primary.  They even went so far as to promise more money brought into the state as a result. 

In order for the GOP to secure the seat for Cochran in that primary, they didn't just have to reach out to Democrats.  They had to act like them, too.

This is the opposite of a conservative like Sarah Palin.  While it's true that she "reached out" to Democrats as Alaska's governor, she acted like a conservative in doing so.  You see, Alaska's Republicans in many ways were behaving like far too many on the federal level are today.  The state's new and energetic governor knew that putting her state before her party was the right thing to do.  So she reached out to Democrats in her state who agreed with that position, and together, they sent many of the "corrupt bastards" packing. 

Palin is now positioned to make that same impact on a federal level.  One could argue that it doesn't seem like it while listening to the recent background noise created by the BOREs of the GOP over one single speech – yet, literally, this caviling only proves she's rocking their world.

Who are the BOREs you might ask?  They're what I call armchair-admirers of the Boring, yet Opportunistic Republican Establishment.  I don't seek to replace the term "RINO"; don't worry.  BOREs simply cash in on their hatred for commonsense conservatives. 

They start out as RINOs, sure.  They know there isn't any energy in the grassroots-Republican base to rally behind compromising the party's principles as they desire.  They know they can't make a difference or have an impact on much of anything as individuals.  So they respond to individuals who can by acting like Democrats, using Alinsky tactics in their efforts to tell people what to think.  Simultaneously, they know that putting the name "Palin" in their headlines is enough to get attention.  Then they tweet each other's pieces out ad nauseam to create the ultimate consensus of their dream: Palin is over. 

After Palin explained her Iowa connections in last Saturday's 2015 Iowa Freedom Summit speech, she tied in some of her run-ins with the media.  Afterward, a clearly sensitive Byron York (ironically, a member of the media) decided to prove her right.  During her speech, she offered an expression of strengthening backs that were bent (also used by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1967) when she encouraged weakened GOP leaders to stop retreating as we approach 2016.  As such, she warned the GOP that in her own state of Alaska, an independent conservative (whom she endorsed) unseated the incumbent Republican for governor in the 2014 elections.  Is it really just a coincidence that many members of the BORE-GOP brand avoided that meat and dismissed the entire speech instead?

Charles W. Cooke of National Review claimed that Palin shouldn't have any role in the GOP's future by saying she's engaged in a "pasquinade," yet he ignores the conservatives she's gotten elected to Congress and helped place in governors' mansions across the nation.  (How many of those can Cooke take credit for?)

It's even gotten to the point where some on the more reliably conservative blogs are solidifying the left's charge of how the GOP treats women by declaring we wouldn't listen to her "if she weren't attractive and female" as certain parties attempt to make a legitimate point about her record on immigration. 

The problem is the point the above-referenced author is making becomes immediately delegitimized by equating a "path to citizenship" with blanket "amnesty" in referencing an answer Palin gave to a reporter in 2008 while she was under the control of the McCain campaign.  A "path to citizenship" could be achieved in many ways, including having illegals returned to their countries of origin, paying a fine, then applying for a work visa.  Other ways to handle immigration might include the citizen review model that Newt Gingrich suggested in the 2012 primaries by applying an age test to prevent established community members who are here illegally from being ripped away from their wives and children while perhaps focusing more on those who've been here for less than five years. 

There are many ways to approach immigration reform, and all of them are up for fair debate.  Yet many Republicans currently in office are completely ignoring the first commonsense step: securing the border.  This is something Palin told a reporter in 2013 while visiting Jan Brewer in Arizona.

As the author of this piece challenges Palin supporters to offer up anything she's said of significance, he ignores much of Palin's commentary on this very issue.  Take for example her thrashing of the GOP over their lack of response to President Obama's lawlessness on immigration back in June of last year.  As Tony Lee at Breitbart pointed out, calling out the GOP is nothing new for Palin.  Her record as Alaska's governor proves her credibility.  There, she handled the GOP's backroom deals with big oil insiders like a champ.  On the federal level, she notes similar concern as some of the GOP's biggest donors benefit from the cheap labor of undocumented workers. 

Additionally, her prediction of "death panels" was mocked before they were admitted to by Democrats.  Her prediction of the Ukraine invasion was laughed at until it eventuated. 

And finally, her 2011 speech in Indianola, Iowa is where she pointed out the crony capitalism existing in both of the party establishments.  She described it as "socialism for the very rich and the very poor" and explained how it continues breaking the backs of the middle class.  Palin ­– like most of us – believes in true free-market capitalism, not the crony kind often overlooked by the BOREs of the GOP.  Notice that at the 2015 Iowa Freedom Summit, crony capitalism is finally being mentioned by Marsha Blackburn, Carla Fiorina, and others.

If Palin's not part of the GOP going forward, who's going to call out the things that take most a few years to even get around to?

As longtime Palin supporter Peter Singleton told Dave Weigel at Bloomberg News very recently:

I honestly don't know what the governor's plans are for 2016, and of course I still have the highest regard and respect for her[.] ... I'm certain she'll be a major part of the public debate in whatever capacity she believes is most appropriate, and I suspect she will continue to raise critical issues that no one else is raising[.]

Singleton is right.  While we don't know if she'll seek the White House, it's clear that she's not going away.  As I mentioned in 2012, the GOP treated Palin in a very similar manner.  She wasn't at the convention and kept her distance out of respect for the party.  Yet while her 2012 candidates won their Senate elections (Cruz [TX], Fischer [NE], and Flake [AZ]), the BOREs of the GOP fell flat on their faces after Romney lost to the worst president ever in American history.

And considering how silly this made them look back then, chances are that they'll look even sillier if they don't heed her warning she made at the same speech they're crowing about: "It's going to take more than a village to beat Hillary." 

She's ready!  The BOREs, on the other hand, seem content to continue to strengthen her for that fight while displaying that they themselves are not even close.