Prince Harry Naked Playing Strip Pool vs Sarah Palin she's all sexy a gosh-darn don'tcha know

Here is Prince Harry naked ass getting really friendly with some chick in Las Vegas over the weekend. And from the photos we can see Prince Harry had a really fun time playing strip pool with a bunch of Vegas sluts in his high roller VIP suite.Harry, along with a large entourage, went down to the hotel bar and met a bunch of young women... and invited them up to his suite for a party. Some of the party goers snapped photos of the Prince playing a game of strip pool that quickly escalated into full-on royal nudity. In one photo, a fully nude Harry cups his genitals while a topless woman stands behind him. In another photo, a naked Harry is bear-hugging a woman who appears to be completely nude as well. Thanks to TMZ for sharing the uncensored photos.

The images of Queen Elizabeth's grandson naked with an unnamed woman while on holiday are now unofficially banned in Britain, following a request from St James's Palace, the official residence of the prince, through the Press Complaints Commission to respect his privacy. They might go so far as trying to get a court ordered injunction against the publication of the images in the UK similar to whatTulisa Contostavlos did to ban her leaked blowjob sex tape available for download here. But according to some reports, The Sun tabloid on Friday will publish photographs of Prince Harry naked in Las Vegas, becoming the first British publication to defy the request from the royal family's lawyers. On Thursday The Sunpublished a photos on the cover of two models striking the same pose as the Prince and the unknown woman. These pics of Harry were not going to be posted on Gutter Uncensored however now we have to share since the "Royal Family" want to ban them. What happens in Vegas don't always stay in Vegas... Enjoy! Click on pictures to enlarge.

Here is the cover with the models doing the pose to be safe for publication:

 she's all sexy a gosh-darn don'tcha know. Not bad looking legs on the Governor, she better get use to candid photos of her making it on the web. From her hairstyle to her politics, America remains obsessed with the female politician who seemingly came out of nowhere. She should follow in Barack’s footsteps; write a book or two

If you've ever watched a political convention on television, I'm sure you've thought it looks like a circus. People are running around, wearing funny hats and yelling at each other. And, yes, there are clowns.

And that's exactly what's it like when you're there. In the summer of 1972, I was there -- I had been elected as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami Beach. That year, the party gathering was a special one, with all-night debate sessions about the explosive social issues of the day, and political activists joining elected officials as part of the delegation. They called it "The People's Convention," and it was an honor to be among citizens of all stripes -- from all across the country -- occupying one of the delegation's coveted seats.

I'll never forget one particular fellow delegate. She was in her 70s and a farmwoman from Sacramento, who'd sold two cows in order to finance her trip. Talk about your American dream story.

For all the fireworks and partisan posturing of campaign season in this nation, our electoral process remains a thing of brilliance -- a living, breathing embodiment of the Founders' vision of representative government. But to my mind, nothing illustrates the true magic of that singularly American process than those quadrennial gatherings of the party faithful -- the conventions -- which begin this week with the Republican convention in Tampa, Florida.

Sure, there's lots of screaming at each other on the convention floor during those first heady days -- not to mention trash-talking the "enemy" from the podium throughout the week. But political conventions are also places where dreams are born, hopes are realized, and careers are made. As messy as the proceedings can be, American electoral conventions are the shining model of democracy in action, and I know of no other country on earth that celebrates them with such noisy pride.

Like most conventions, the one I attended in 1972 had a little bit of everything. There was drama in the back room debates, as Democrats of varying shades of blue fought over whether to include a women's right to choose in the party platform. (The measure was defeated -- Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and all of the women there were crushed.) There was excitement, as delegates rallied behind our presidential nominee, candidate George McGovern, convinced he was the one to evict Richard Nixon from the White House. (Despite our enthusiasm, McGovern would go on to lose the general election in a humiliating landslide.)

There’s a reason for this broad-based cooling of affections. In the past four years, something like an organic consensus has emerged. Doubts that began with talk of “death panels” only grew with mutterings about “blood libel.” Over time, the reflexive Republican impulse to defend her honor became replaced with exhaustion and embarrassment. 

Even some of the most devoted Palinites are left wondering what they were thinking.

Take David Kelly of Colorado Springs, the one-time treasurer of the Draft Sarah 2012 committee. In 2009, when I interviewed him, Kelly believed that Palin “represents the silent majority of this nation ... she invokes what conservative America’s all about: God and Country.” Now he’s come to a different conclusion.

“You may be shocked to hear that I am no longer a Palin supporter,” he told me over the phone.  “I think what attracted me to her in the first place was the fact that she’d say things that you’d hear at the Thanksgiving table when your relatives are there and go, ‘There’s my crazy aunt, but she nails it every time.’” 

(L-R) Former Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin and former President Bill Clinton speak at separate events. (Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images ; Mark Wilson / Getty Images)

But now? “I realize that she’s another Republican talking head,” says Kelly, who is today a proud Ron Paul supporter. “I don’t think she has the caliber to make a great leader for this nation in these times ... She’s off my radar. It’s a sad statement.”

Yes, it’s been a bad breakup. But signs of trouble were there for a long time. In December 2010, just one month after the Tea Party triumph, an ABC poll found that “59 percent of voters said they wouldn’t cast a ballot for Palin and only 8 percent of Americans said they’d ‘definitely’ vote for her.”

Almost a year later, in September 2011, a McClatchy-Marist poll found that “by 72 percent to 24 percent, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents do not want Palin to run for president in 2012. Even among Tea Party supporters—a group that likes Palin—68 percent do not want her to run.” 

The polarization has faded in favor of a general understanding that for all her talents, Palin was not ready for presidential prime time. 

Objectivity is elusive, but eventually something like balance creeps into our assessments. 

This new consensus is a vindication for her critics, especially Republican skeptics like Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, who described Palin as an “attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.” In the hothouse atmosphere of 2008, Parker’s statement earned her some 20,000 emails, many of this vintage: “You’re not one of us, you’re one of THEM, the liberal lovers, the flag-burners, country haters, the ones who want to kill god and put Stalin in his place and see this nation destroyed by a sea of brown people and gays.”

Now even such inspired bile seems like a museum piece. Absent the chance that she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency (or a candidate herself), Palin no longer stirs the kind of passion that sold magazines and divided families. The fascination has faded. Instead, there is an aura of embarrassment bordering on amnesia, even from some one-time supporters. This dynamic will ultimately affectMichele Bachmann fans as well.

While I was writing this column, an interesting bit of contrasting data hit the wires. Bill Clinton has a 66 percent approval rating, matching his all-time high. Coincident with this news is the announcement that Bubba will be the Wednesday night keynote speaker of the Democratic convention in North Carolina. 

It is surreal but true to say that Bill Clinton is now the Republicans’ favorite living Democratic president, a person who even Newt Gingrich now refers to with nostalgia and something like respect. 

No more is Clinton attacked as far-left ’60s radical—he is recognized as the essentially centrist Southern governor he always said he was. His wife—perhaps even more hated by the right in the 1990s—is widely regarded as a stabilizing force in the Obama administration as secretary of state. 

One interpretation of this reversal of fortune is that the Clintons look good because the Obamas are so bad. But reflect on the fact that so many of the attacks are the same—including a column originally published on WorldNetDaily calling Clinton a Marxist Manchurian candidate—and you quickly come to the more obvious conclusion that the problem lies in the reflexive hyper-partisanship that distorts the characters of political figures beyond realistic recognition. 

Over time, we start to see these figures more clearly. No one is as good as intense advocates believe or as bad as overheated opponents insist. But I think it is worthwhile to note that the more reasoned criticism of Sarah Palin now seems to be widely accepted. And on the flip side, American consensus about Bill Clinton—for all his well-documented flaws—has erred on the side of his moderate defenders. Objectivity is elusive, but eventually something like balance creeps into our assessments. The result is not always nonpartisan.

The takeaway for this current election is to not fall for the overheated attacks—or overzealous defenses—of either candidate, especially when they echo old fear-mongering scripts. Falling for the fever of hyper-partisanship tends to make fools of us all, in time

Cheney said about Palin:

“I don’t think she passed that test … of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake.”

He might have a point.

Apparently, Palin’s not “ready” to sit in an administration for eight years which adds 5 trillion dollars to our unpaid debt basically demoralizing the spirit of conservatism leading to four years of Barack Obama.  Cheney was “ready” for that, wasn’t he?

Palin’s not “ready” to engage in cronyism which dictates who she’d appoint to lifetime positions on the Supreme Court or to head federal emergency agencies like FEMA.  Bush & Cheney were “ready” for that, weren’t they?

Palin is “ready” to balance a budget – since she did it in Alaska.

Palin is “ready” to increase benefits for our esteemed elders while cutting out wasteful spending existing all across our federal government – since she did similar things in Alaska.

Palin is “ready” to call out entrenched special interests like she did when she served up a little justice to the Republican Party’s good old boys and their dealings with big oil.  She did that in Alaska, too.

Palin’s “ready” to unabashedly call out Barack Obama.  This includes pointing out his past associations, his reckless squandering of billions of our dollars to pay back his Wall Street friends (just as Bush/Cheney once did), and his plans to whip Americans into Greece-like big-government submission.   This is in contrast to the establishment’s plans to hold back.

Palin’s “ready” to endorse countless candidates for the Congress.  She’s been successful at using her enormous grassroots influence to pull a great deal of them across the finish line.

Palin’s not ready to fall in line with the establishment.  Until any candidate (including our perceived “front-runner”) demonstrates a full willingness to truly unify with the party’s grassroots, don’t count on her to make deals behind closed doors or hold high-priced fundraisers at her home.

Considering everything Bush & Company were “ready” for, it’s no wonder why Barack Obama was ever put in the position of becoming President of our great Republic.  Now of course, he must be fired.

But after observing the behavior of Cheney, Sununu, and other Romney surrogates, it might serve the interest of the American people to ask whether or not Romney is truly “ready” to do that considering the company he chooses to keep.

Update by Doug: Doug Powers at Michellemalkin.com makes some great points:

If there was a mistake in 2008, it was the nominee, not the running mate.

The MSM will be chewing on this one all week, eager to go back to 2008 again and never return. “Imagine how lousy things could have been if voters had put Sarah Palin in the VP’s office — even Darth Vader agrees!” But when the dust settles, here we are, stuck in the reality of 2012 in a foundering economy Sarah Palin had nothing to do with designing that is perpetuated by people the majority of voters believed passed the “test” for government leadership.

Update:

Liz Cheney has tweeted a little support for the Governor in obvious disagreement with her father. (h/t Timothy Jacques)

Rarely do I disagree with those who give the Governor the respect she deserves, but “the best VP ever” part is something I might have to disagree with.

Very disappointed in Dick Cheney, especially considering what he knows first hand about media and false narratives.

I’d also like to add some comments made….those who suggest Cheney has a right to his opinion and how we have to unite.  They need to only listen to their own advice.  Of course Cheney has a right to his opinion, but “uniting” involves telling the truth and judging one on the basis of their record and their conviction.  Nobody can claim to fighting for this country to the degree Sarah Palin has since 2008 and nobody can deny her record of accomplishment.  He frankly owes her an apology considering who our opponent is supposed to be.

Palin’s supporters were further inflamed when the piece of music that CNN used Sunday to introduce its segment on Cheney’s remarks was the Pink song “Stupid Girls.”

Usually, Palin needs no assistance when it comes to capturing the political spotlight. She demonstrated this Friday, wading into a controversy du jour with an ad-libbed line at the end of a speech in Texas in support of U.S. Senate hopeful Ted Cruz, the insurgent candidate who is taking on state Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in what has become a nasty run-off election.

At the end of her remarks in The Woodlands, an upscale suburb of Houston, the former Alaska governor and reality show matriarch alluded to a controversy over gay marriage that has enveloped the Chick-fil-A fast food chain. "Jason, you’re going to have to take me on our way back to the airport later," she told her longtime aide, Jason Recher, according to Politico.

“We drive by a Chick-fil-A. We don’t have that in Alaska. Love me some Chick-fil-A. So we’ll go there, Jason, on the way, OK?” The crowd erupted in cheers.

Palin was referring not so subtly to the political fallout after Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said his chain was “guilty as charged” of supporting the “biblical definition of the family unit.” (In mid-July, according to a CNN chronology of the controversy, Cathy gave an interview to an online Baptist journal in North Carolina that was picked up by the Baptist Press. “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy told the publication. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”)

As word spread, mostly on social media, protests began.

The Jim Henson Co., creator of the Muppets, announced it would sever a deal it had with Chick-fil-A to make toys for children’s meals. Local politicians in a few blue-state cities said Chick-fil-A was not welcome. Nearly 6,000 people signed an online petition vowing to boycott Chick-fil-A for its stance on gay marriage (and its financial support of some groups opposed to the practice). The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has urged its supporters to make their feelings known in a same-sex kiss-in at Chick-fil-A's across the country on Friday.

A counter-protest took shape: Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has urged people to make Wednesday “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.”

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who held many events at Chick-fil-A locations during his presidential campaign, urged his Facebook followers to patronize the chain: “Help us fight for traditional families and eat chicken at the same time.”

And Palin did end up getting some of that chicken on her way out of Texas.
On Friday, she tweeted a photo of herself with her husband, Todd, in a Chick-fil-A, holding bags of food and making a thumbs-up gesture.

Here is Sabine Jemeljanova posing topless for her 2013 calendar in some see-thru undies and the sexiest lingerie ever. And Sabine Jemeljanova is one hot chick... Her new calendar will probably be the hottest topless calender of 2013 and lucking we don't have to wait until then to see the result of the photo shoot. They really know how to grow a sexy glamour model in Latvia. Sabine is wearing see-through panties in last photo! drooling... Enjoy! Click on pictures to enlarge.