It is true and cannot be disputed that the Massachusetts legislature was–and remains–heavily Democrat controlled, but it leads me to ask this question: Mitt Romney was not from Massachusetts but CHOSE to run for governor in one of the most liberal states in America, so why is it that this was the state he decided to run in if he were a true conservative? Could it be that this was a great way to hide his true liberal policies behind the legislature of a liberal state?

  He ran for governor simply as a stepping stone to the presidency and I find it odd he would chose to base his presidential aspirations in Massachusetts of all states if he really is who he says he is.

 Answer: At various times during the campaign they have each posed a serious threat to Mitt Romney’s inevitability and because of this Mitt Romney has launched vigorous, brutal, and nasty attacks on these candidates in an attempt to destroy them in order to assure his assumption to the nomination which he feels he is entitled to.

  I read this opinion piece on American Thinker the other day and, well, it got me thinking. The article was about Mitt Romney’s “scorched earth” politics and how it is suppressing voter turnout as people become disenfranchised with the Republican party as a result. Here is some of that article:

The  real story of the three results from Tuesday night is not that Rick Santorum  picked up some wins — though that is big.  No, the real story is that  three states held votes and nobody came.  Almost nobody, that is.   Consider that the total turnout for Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota combined  was barely over half of the turnout of South  Carolina alone and — worse yet — barely over half the turnout for the  same three states in 2008.

What  gives?

The  answer is fairly clear.  The candidates have forgotten about Obama.   What has turned folks off is Mitt Romney’s scorched-earth campaign, which has  managed to unfortunately suck all the rest of the candidates into a circular  firing squad of a childish food-fight that is of zero interest to the Republican  base voter.

   After giving this article some thought I have come to the realization that this is a legitimate concern moving forward. Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to win the nomination and if that means destroying to political careers and personal reputations of all of those who stand in his way, so be it. Rick Santorum said it best when he said, and I am paraphrasing here, that Mitt Romney doesn’t want to stand on his record as governor of Massachusetts so he has focused on destroying his opponents instead. 

    In 2010 the Republican base was energized and wanted to send Barack Obama a message and they did so with huge gains in the House and modest gains in the Senate, but now at a time when the Republican base should be energized against a weak incumbent they are simply not showing up at the polls to select a person to defeat the failed president.

  What possible explanation can there be for this lack of enthusiasm other than the fact that voters are tiring of the negative attack ads being run by Mitt Romney, as well as the other candidates who feel the need to counter-attack? Mitt Romney has successfully corrupted the opinions of a majority of the voters in regard to the other candidates, and because they simply do not trust Mitt Romney they see no need to go to the polls either in support of him or any of the candidates he has laid waste to. 

  Mitt Romney is destroying the chances of defeating Barack Obama in November and he is doing it because he has convinced himself that he deserves to be president and he is willing to ruthlessly attack anyone who challenges him.

  In the end he will most likely be successful; he will win the nomination, but it will be at the cost of creating the circumstances and conditions which make it impossible for him to beat Barack Obama in November. If he is the nominee there is the real possibility that he will have so alienated the supporters of the other candidates with his dirty politics that they will not be able to support him because they will harbor a deep resentment at the way he won the nomination. If he were to win the nomination on the issues alone without destroying the other candidates this might not be an issue, but the depths to which he is willing to sink in order to win the nomination will leave voters with a bad taste in their mouths, and the low voter turnout in the recent Republican contests could provide truth to this.

  On the off chance that a Republican candidate will rise up and defeat Mitt Romney in the primary Mitt Romney will have left him so damaged that he will not be able to defeat Barack Obama.

  Liberals such as Barack Obama like to call attention to Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists where he mentions the separation of church and state when it comes to tearing down all public displays of faith, the mention of God at public events, and anything that can be construed as a mingling of politics and religion, yet Barack Obama did not feel as if it was a violation of church and state for the government to dictate to Christian organizations which healthcare plans they can and cannot offer to employees.

  The backlash against this edict was quick and fierce and I think that Barack Obama–in his ethnocentric views–underestimated the fallout from this controversy and today he backtracked from this position by announcing that he reached an “accommodation” which he hoped would help to placate the controversy. But did he really back down in the face of this brewing controversy?

  The answer is simple; he did not.

    Barack Obama still holds the same position today as he did yesterday and the Catholic church and other Christian denominations will still be forced to offer plans which include free contraception and abortions because instead of forcing the organizations to change insurance plans, the Obama regime has decided that the churches can keep the same plans, but the difference is that these plans will now be forced to offer the offending services. This is supposed to alleviate the churches from their guilt by building a wall of separation between the church and their insurance plans.

  This is nothing but an attempt to provide the religious organizations with a “clear conscience” clause in an attempt to separate them from the issues at hand much in the way Pontius Pilot washed his hands of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Pilot “absolved” himself of the crucifixion by saying it was what the people wanted but not really what he wanted, but the end result was the same.

  And that is what is happening here; according to Barack Obama, the churches will now be able to wash their hands of this controversy by claiming they had nothing to do with this change in policy even though they will still be paying for contraception and abortions. The end result is the same; The Catholic church will still be paying for practices which they feel are immoral but Barack Obama has abolished them of their sins with this new “accommodation.”

  But who the hell is Barack Obama to absolve anyone of their sins? Does Barack Obama feel he dictate the same position in different words and the churches and the people will simply fall in line because they are too stupid to realize nothing has changed but the wording?

  The mainstream media is force feeding Republican voters Mitt Romney for one reason and one reason only; they find him to be the less offensive (read, most liberal) Republican candidate in the race, and in the event he were to defeat Barack Obama they would rather have Mitt Romney in office than any  other candidate.

  That simple fact tells us all we need to know about Mitt Romney, but here are some questions Republican voters need to ask themselves: How can a man who has been on both sides of so many issues be trusted? How do we know how Mitt Romney will govern if he were to defeat Barack Obama? Does anyone really doubt that he would quickly pivot back to the left if he found it politically expedient to win reelection?

  Before you head to the polls in your state and pull the lever for Mitt Romney because you feel he is the most electable candidate you would do well to remember that at varying points in his political career he actually held viewpoints which are not all that different from Barack Obama. Mitt Romney is a political whore who will say whatever it takes to win election, he has no core beliefs other than the fact that he feels entitled to be president.

  Here is what Mitt Romney doesn’t want you to see:

  But according to this article a former DEA official is making a claim that seems to contradict what Eric Holder is claiming is the truth about Operation Fast and Furious:

He now states that his agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were not only aware of the gunwalking plot, but that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were actively interdicting the plot, confiscating weapons the ATF was walking to Mexican narco-terrorists:

“In 2009, 2010, I became aware that ATF was walking guns into Mexico,” Coulson said. “I also learned that Homeland Security Investigations, then ICE, actually interceded on more than one occasion where they seized weapons at the ports of entry when they were heading southbound contrary to ATF’s plans.”

There was serious friction, Coulson claims, between ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the ATF in Phoenix. When Coulson took the gun walking to his bosses in Phoenix, he was told the lead law enforcement official in Arizona — U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke — was already aware of it.

  So the DEA, ICE, and DHS all knew about this operation and yet we are to believe that this was something that was localized to Arizona authorities unbeknownst to the “Justice” Department?

  I would say Eric Holder’s defense is unravelling, but it wasn’t believable in the first place.  

  Here is part of what I wrote in that post:

This story might be a benign example of the usage of a Predator drone on American soil, using a drone on a reconnaissance mission to ensure a situation is safe before the police enter a potentially dangerous situation seems harmless enough, but does anyone not think that their usage will become more commonplace as we move forward if we simply accept this? And as Predator drones flying over American soil becomes more commonplace are we to believe that they will not gain the authority to take more enlarged powers in law enforcement?

I am not talking about a future where Predator drones are called on to fire on American citizens, but rather a future where the drones are routinely flying over American cities and spying on Americans under the justification of stopping potential crimes. I am talking about a future where the military is charged with policing the American people BEFORE a crime has taken place.

  Part of my concern over the use of drones was nestled in the fact that the president signed into law the Defense Authorization Bill, which deemed United States soil as an official battlefield on the war on terror and authorized the president to use military force against citizens of the United States on American soil.

  It now appears as if my fear was justified, but it might be happening even sooner that I feared it would.

    Today the Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act and Barack Obama is expected to sign it if and when it reaches his desk. This bill includes a provision which authorizes the FAA to study implementing regulations and licensing of thousands of unmanned drones, and it is estimated that as many as 30,000 drones could be flying over American cities by the year 2020.

  The age of a Big Brother police state is nearly upon us and we can thank the Tea Party House of Representatives, who were elected on the promise of a concept of constitutional governance, smaller government, liberty, and personal responsibility, all the while touting an anti-nanny state agenda, for thrusting this police state upon us.

  When drones are flying over the cities of the United States we can thank the very people we elected to shrink the government for expanding the use of drones into an every day inconvenience on law abiding American citizens. Remember this when you look up in the sky and see Big Brother watching us from high above.

  I was expecting something like this if Barack Obama was reelected, but I did not foresee the Tea Party House delivering it into his hands.

  Rick Santorum was predicted to have a good night beforehand, but nobody expected it to go this well and I think it is partly a referendum on Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as people are still looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney and are tiring of the bickering between he and Newt Gingrich.

    The closest contest was in Colorado, where Rick Santorum defeated Mitt Romney by six points, but this was the one state last night that Mitt Romney  was expected to win and he didn’t. Missouri handed Mitt Romney a healthy defeat; Rick Santorum won by thirty points, 55%-25%. But the biggest loss of the night for Mitt Romney was in Minnesota where he finished a distant third with only 17% of the vote, while Rick Santorum gathered 45% and Ron Paul hauled in 27%.

  So the questions are, can Rick Santorum capitalize on this huge night and does he now have momentum which could carry him into Super Tuesday? He still has two problems–and they are major problems–money and organization. The money problem could be cured with a night such as he had last night; he should expect to see donations start coming in, especially if he receives a bump in the polls. The organization problem is not so easily fixed at this point; although he might start to see more people volunteer to help him, he still isn’t on the ballot in several states and it goes without saying that this is a major setback for him.

  Besides people tiring of the Romney/Gingrich spat, Romney’s feeling that he is entitled to be the nominee, and Gingrich’s oft-times nastiness, there may be one other issue at play here in Rick Santorum’s victory last night. Last week the Obama regime announced it would force religious institutions which provided their workers with health insurance to comply with Obamacare and offer plans which included funding for contraception and abortion. This has riled many Christian denominations, none more so than the Catholic church, and Rick Santorum just happens to be a devout Catholic so this issue is personal to him and fits right in his wheelhouse, and could have given him a boost last night and heading forward.

  Popular thought with the pundits after Florida was that this race was shaping up nicely for Mitt Romney as all the states could be friendly ground, while being trouble for Newt Gingrich, but they didn’t count on Rick Santorum’s rise, after his big win in Nevada Mitt Romney stumbled in these three states last night and if Rick Santorum can make any hay on Super Tuesday Mitt Romney could be in the fight for his political life.

  Mitt Romney’s inevitability took a hit last night and you can rest assured that the attack ads are going to be focused on Rick Santorum next.

  Here is a video I found at Sentry Journal that I thought my readers would enjoy:

  Is this a stretch made by somebody who is supporting Newt Gingrich? It is quite possible and even likely, but the fact remains that conservatives do not trust Mitt Romney, and for good reason. Mitt Romney is a man with no firm political beliefs–he will say whatever he feels is necessary in order to win the presidency, but we really do not know what his true positions are because they are forever changing.

  So is it a stretch? I don’t know because I don’t know who Mitt Romney really is politically, so I will let you be the judge.

  Well, while speaking in front of Hispanics in Politics the other day Ron Paul took it a step further when he compared Americans who support closing the Mexican border to the Nazis. We are all fascists now because we don’t understand the cause of the problem!

I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they’re the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,” Paul told the group. “In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews

  But I thought that Ron Paul supported bringing the troops home in order to put them on the border in the interest of national security so where did this position suddenly come from? Ron Paul affirmed his belief in legal immigration but also stated that most people are now antagonistic to all immigrants and compared us to Nazis because we want to scapegoat Hispanics for many of  America’s problems instead of looking at the cause of the problem.

  At the same time he was castigating Americans for scapegoating Hispanics and claiming he would be tough on illegal immigration he also stated that closing the border was not an answer to the problem:

Paul said he’s not one of those politicians who believes that “barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems.” That’s not, he said, the American way. And he doesn’t think that a national identification card is the way to go

  Was Ron Paul simply pandering to the group he was speaking in front of, or is this his true position on the Mexican border? Considering that Ron Paul is a politician who claims to say what he really feels without pandering to specific groups I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say he wasn’t pandering here–this is how he really feels–but if this is the case than doesn’t that mean he has been pandering to conservatives during the primary when he stated he would bring the troops home and place them on the border?

  Would the real Ron Paul please stand up?!

  H/T to Rjjrdq’s America.